Combining Modes of Reconfiguration: Antecedents and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium explores the conditions under which firms pursue a combination of different modes of reconfiguration. Five papers comprise this symposium, and a discussant will focus on connecting these five papers and bringing the conversation to a higher level. Two studies in this symposium focus on antecedents, and three studies explore the consequences of using multiple modes of reconfiguration. Scholars have long been interested in how firms use modes of reconfiguration – e..g, M&A, internal development, alliances, and divestitures – to adapt and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage (Karim and Capron, 2015). Most of the studies, however, had focused on analyzing the antecedents or consequences of pursuing each of these modes as isolated strategies, with a few select studies looking at a combination of, for example, alliances and acquisitions (Anand and Khanna, 2000; Das and Teng, 2000; Vassolo, Anand, and Folta, 2004), acquisitions and divestitures (Bennett and Feldman, 2017; Villalonga & McGahan, 2005; Vidal and Mitchell, 2018). More recently, however, scholars have started to pay attention to how firms pursue a combination of strategic modes of reconfiguration over time, recognizing that firms that pursue variation might have an advantage in seizing a wider variety of opportunities for growth over firms that specialize (Capron and Mitchell, 2012). This symposium builds on this idea – and on an accepted symposium at the Academy of Management Annual Conference in Atlanta in 2017 – and the five studies will present different components of pursuing multiple modes of reconfiguration: three papers will focus on the role of the simultaneous pursuit of multiple modes of reconfiguration, (1) one looking at the effect of internal development and M&A on innovation, (2) another one looking at divestitures and acquisitions on financial performance; (3) a paper looking at sequential entry and exit of markets and the impact on performance. One paper will focus on the pervasiveness in managers’ choices among acquisitions, alliances, and internal development; and a paper will assess how institutional ownership may influence the choice of using a particular mode of reconfiguration – exit. Strategic Complementarity between Research and Development (R&D) and Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A Presenter: Lisa Tang; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Pruning for Growth: The Sequential Use of Divestitures and Acquisitions Presenter: Maria Elena Vidal; City U. of New York, Baruch College Presenter: William G. Mitchell; U. of Toronto Unpacking the Dynamics of Scope Transformation in US Banks Presenter: Nicola Cetorelli; Federal Reserve Bank of New York Presenter: Michael G Jacobides; London Business School Presenter: Sam Stern; U. of Michigan Altered Minds: When and How Does Managerial Cognition Develop and Change? Presenter: Razvan Lungeanu; Northeastern U. Investor Influence on Unrelated Businesses Exit: Combined Behavioral and Institutions Perspective Presenter: Xavier Castaner; U. of Lausanne Presenter: Nikolaos Kavadis; U. Carlos III de Madrid
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".