Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine how an acquirer’s diversification strategy shapes the multiple dimensions of inventive activity. Differing from prior research, we use a set of indicators to investigate this phenomenon. In particular, we consider three different but complementary dimensions of inventive quality: technological impact, originality of the synthesized knowledge streams, and generality of applicability across different technological domains. The results obtained using a quasi-experimental approach show that diversification via acquisitions has a negative effect on post-acquisition technological impact. However, firms that have diversified outperform those firms that have not. Last, the acquirer’s originality and generality increase after the merger and acquisition transaction, evidencing that the inventive activity benefited from the diversification strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abadie, A. (2002). Bootstrap tests for distributional treatment effects in instrumental variable models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97(457), 284–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abadie, A., Drukker, D., Herr, J. L., & Imbens, G. W. (2004). Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata. The Stata Journal, 4(3), 290–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abadie, A. & Imbens, G. W. (2002). Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. In NBER technical working paper no. 283. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 64(7), 228–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 197–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Novelli, E. (2017). Redirecting research efforts on the diversification-performance linkage: The search for synergy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 342–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16(9), 451–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. S., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 929–958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, P. M., & Cole, B. M. (2010). Breadth-of-impact frontier: How firm-level decisions and selection environment dynamics generate boundary-spanning inventions. Technovation, 30(7), 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. (1989). Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in multiproduct firms. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 310–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenzon, S., & Patacconi, A. (2013). Innovation and firm value: An investigation of the changing role of patents, 1985–2007. Research Policy, 42(8), 1496–1510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessen, J. (2008). The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campa, J. M., & Kedia, S. (2002). Explaining the diversification discount. The Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1731–1762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capron, L. (1999). The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11), 987–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Colombo, M. G., Garrone, P., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological-and market-relatedness. Research Policy, 34(2), 195–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Grilli, L., & Piva, E. (2006). In search of complementary assets: The determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, 35(8), 1166–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corder, G. W., & Foreman, D. I. (2009). Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Man, A. P., & Duysters, G. (2005). Collaboration and innovation: a review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation. Technovation, 25(12), 1377–1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desyllas, P., & Hughes, A. (2010). Do high technology acquirers become more innovative? Research Policy, 39(8), 1105–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Guardo, M. C., & Harrigan, K. R. (2016). Shaping the path to inventive activity: the role of past experience in R&D alliances. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 250–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Guardo, M. C., & Valentini, G. (2007). Explaining the effect of M&A on technological performance. In Advances in mergers and acquisitions. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (pp. 107–125).

  • Dibiaggio, L., Nasiriyar, M., & Nesta, L. (2014). Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies. Research Policy, 43(9), 1582–1593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504–1511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennen, E., & Richter, A. (2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts—or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, H. (2001). Patent applications and subsequent changes of performance: Evidence from time-series cross-section analyses on the firm level. Research Policy, 30(1), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, T., & Leidinger, J. (2014). Testing patent value indicators on directly observed patent value—An empirical analysis of Ocean Tomo patent auctions. Research Policy, 43(3), 519–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., Giuri, P., & Luzzi, A. (2007). The market for patents in Europe. Research Policy, 36(8), 1163–1183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambardella, A., & Torrisi, S. (1998). Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research Policy, 27(5), 445–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Vega, M. (2006). Does technological diversification promote innovation?: An empirical analysis for European firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 230–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (1987). Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8(5), 425–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graebner, M. E., Heimeriks, K. H., Huy, Q. N., & Vaara, E. (2017). The process of postmerger integration: A review and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O. (1998). Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Research Policy, 27(5), 465–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Multi-technology corporations: Why they have “distributed” rather than “distinctive core” competencies. California Management Review, 39(4), 8–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (2013). Reflections on knowledge-based approaches to the organization of production. Journal of Management and Governance, 17(3), 541–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1981). Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters, 7(2), 183–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H. (1990). The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1990, 85–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (No. w8498). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The RAND Journal of economics, 36(1), 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979–1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R. (2003) Declining demand, divestitures and corporate strategy. In Frederick MA: Beard Group. Originally published as “Strategies for declining businesses”. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980.

  • Harrigan, K. R., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2017). Sustainability of patent-based competitive advantage in the US communications services industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1334–1361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R., Di Guardo, M. C., & Cowgill, B. (2017a). Multiplicative-innovation synergies: Tests in technological acquisitions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1212–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R., Di Guardo, M. C., & Marku, E. (2018). Patent value and the Tobin’s q ratio in media services. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan, K. R., Di Guardo, M. C., Marku, E., & Velez, B. N. (2017b). Using a distance measure to operationalise patent originality. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(9), 988–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 65(2), 261–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., & Navarro-Lozano, S. (2004). Using matching, instrumental variables, and control functions to estimate economic choice models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 30–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E. (1997). Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 339–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S1), 63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(1), 32–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschey, M., & Richardson, V. J. (2004). Are scientific indicators of patent quality useful to investors? Journal of Empirical Finance, 11(1), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. (1994). A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20(2), 297–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1084–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 889–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. F., & Chen, C. J. (2010). The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation, 30(7), 420–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. S. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve survey of patentees (No. w7631). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1435–1457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karim, S., & Kaul, A. (2015). Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking internal knowledge synergy through structural change. Organization Science, 26(2), 439–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karim, S., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Path-dependent and path-breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources following acquisitions in the US medical sector, 1978–1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1061–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keijl, S., Gilsing, V. A., Knoben, J., & Duysters, G. (2016). The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 45(5), 1061–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y., & Finkelstein, S. (2009). The effects of strategic and market complementarity on acquisition performance: Evidence from the US commercial banking industry, 1989–2001. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6), 617–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. J., & Kogut, B. (1996). Technological platforms and diversification. Organization Science, 7(3), 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Lee, C. Y., & Cho, Y. (2016). Technological diversification, core-technology competence, and firm growth. Research Policy, 45(1), 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. K., Arthurs, J. D., Sahaym, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2013). Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 999–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Kim, M. (2016). Market-Driven Technological Innovation Through Acquisitions: The Moderating Effect of Firm Size. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1934–1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. G., Lee, J. D., Song, Y. I., & Lee, S. J. (2007). An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts using zero-inflated count data model: The case of KIST. Scientometrics, 70(1), 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The Rand Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N. (1988). Acquisitions as sources of technological innovation. Mergers and Acquisitions, 23(3), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Vahter, P. (2014). Dynamic complementarities in innovation strategies. Research Policy, 43(10), 1774–1784.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, R., & Alvarez, I. (2009). Technological effects of M&As in Spanish manufacturing. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(4), 761–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1994). Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. J., & Aalbers, H. L. (2016). Technological acquisitions: The impact of geography on post-acquisition innovative performance. Research Policy, 45(9), 1818–1832.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1133–1156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Rotolo, D., & Albino, V. (2015). Determinants of patent citations in biotechnology: An analysis of patent influence across the industrial and organizational boundaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91, 208–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. (2004). Firms’ technological resources and the performance effects of diversification: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1097–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J. (2006). Technological diversity, related diversification, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 601–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 307–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A. (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49(2), 211–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., & Roberts, P. W. (2004). Technological and product-market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 779–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar, A., & Shane, S. (2007). Determinants of invention commercialization: An empirical examination of academically sourced inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 28(11), 1155–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesta, L., & Saviotti, P. P. (2005). Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm’s innovative performance: Evidence from the US pharmaceutical industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(1), 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novelli, E. (2015). An examination of the antecedents and implications of patent scope. Research Policy, 44(2), 493–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palich, L. B., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzar, J., & Willig, R. (1981). Economies of scope. American Economic Review, 71, 268–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paruchuri, S., Nerkar, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). Acquisition integration and productivity losses in the technical core: Disruption of inventors in acquired companies. Organization Science, 17(5), 545–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). The technological competencies of the world’s largest firms: Complex and path-dependent, but not much variety. Research Policy, 26(2), 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Marsh, L. (2006). Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 369–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piscitello, L. (2004). Corporate diversification, coherence and economic performance. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 757–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Chaudhuri, S. (2009). Integrating acquired capabilities: When structural integration is (un) necessary. Organization Science, 20(2), 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 263–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranam, P., & Srikanth, K. (2007). What they know vs. what they do: How acquirers leverage technology acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 805–825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintana-Garcìa, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37(3), 492–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranft, A. L., & Lord, M. D. (2002). Acquiring new technologies and capabilities: A grounded model of acquisition implementation. Organization Science, 13(4), 420–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, J., & Hoetker, G. (2014). Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in technological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 48–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, J., & Kodama, F. (2004). Technological diversity of persistent innovators in Japan: Two case studies of large Japanese firms. Research Policy, 33(3), 531–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 97–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (1987). The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 23(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terza, J. V. (1998). Estimating count data models with endogenous switching: Sample selection and endogenous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 84(1), 129–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terza, J. V., Kenkel, D. S., Lin, T. F., & Sakata, S. (2008). Care-giver advice as a preventive measure for drinking during pregnancy: zeros, categorical outcome responses, and endogeneity. Health Economics, 17(1), 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, G. (2012). Measuring the effect of M&A on patenting quantity and quality. Strategic Management Journal, 33(3), 336–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, G., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2012). M&A and the profile of inventive activity. Strategic Organization, 10(4), 384–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga, B. (2004). Does diversification cause the “diversification discount”? Financial Management, 33(2), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, W. P., Hoskisson, R. E., Short, J. C., & Yiu, D. W. (2011). Resource-based theory and corporate diversification: Accomplishments and opportunities. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1335–1368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Zajac, E. J. (2007). Alliance or acquisition? A dyadic perspective on interfirm resource combinations. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1291–1317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. C., Chen, H. Y., & Lee, K. Y. (2010). Unveiling the core technology structure for companies through patent information. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(7), 1167–1178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X. (2009). Technological innovation and acquisitions. Management Science, 55(7), 1170–1183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Singh, H. (2004). Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: post-acquisition strategies and integration capability in US bank mergers. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1233–1256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cagliari, Via Sant’Ignazio 17, 09123, Cagliari, Italy

    Maria Chiara Di Guardo & Elona Marku

  2. 701 Uris Hall, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Kathryn Rudie Harrigan

Authors
  1. Maria Chiara Di Guardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn Rudie Harrigan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elona Marku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Chiara Di Guardo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Guardo, M.C., Harrigan, K.R. & Marku, E. M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?. J Manag Gov 23, 669–692 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9437-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-018-9437-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation