Advertisement

Abstract

The starting point of this study was the observation that business exit is an issue that tends to have been relatively neglected in strategic management research. It hence remains far from wholly understood, although managers and consultants have been hinting at its persistent relevance for many years. Business exit is typically seen as a symbol for organizational decline and failure. In general, many executives tend to avoid talking about topics which are afflicted with such a negative connotation.

Keywords

Business Unit Institutional Theory Strategic Action Transaction Cost Theory Diversify Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 405.
    Anslinger et al. (1999), p. 16.Google Scholar
  2. 406.
    This differentiation has been adopted from Byerly et al. (2003).Google Scholar
  3. 407.
    See Chapter 3.1.Google Scholar
  4. 408.
    See Chapter 4 for methodological issues.Google Scholar
  5. 409.
    See Chapter 5.1 and 5.2.Google Scholar
  6. 410.
    See Chapter 4.3.4, 5.1 and 5.2.Google Scholar
  7. 411.
    However, empirical evidence from marketing research demonstrates that firm-level factors are stronger determinants of exit decisions than market-level factors. Cf. Dixit & Chintagunta (2007), p. 163.Google Scholar
  8. 412.
    Cf. Dacin et al. (2007), pp. 176 f.Google Scholar
  9. 413.
    Cf. Bartsch & Börner (2007), p. 19 f. This finding is in line with prior empirical results by Steiner (1997).Google Scholar
  10. 414.
    For more details see Burgelman (1994, 1996); see also Markides (1992b), p. 92, and Helfat & Eisenhardt (2004), p. 1220.Google Scholar
  11. 415.
    Referring to the definition and characteristics of organizational key events as well as examples, see Isabella (1990), p. 16.Google Scholar
  12. 416.
    See Chapter 3.1.Google Scholar
  13. 417.
    See also Villalonga & McGahan (2005).Google Scholar
  14. 418.
    Referring to „near-failure“ see, e.g., Kalnins et al. (2006), p. 122, and the literature quoted there.Google Scholar
  15. 419.
    See, e.g., Davis et al. (1994) and Zuckerman (2000) for examples from prior research.Google Scholar
  16. 420.
    See, e.g., Dacin et al. (2007); Elsbach (1994); Ruef & Scott (1998); Sanders & Tuschke (2007).Google Scholar
  17. 421.
    See, e.g., Bansal (2005) and Zajac & Westphal (2004a).Google Scholar
  18. 422.
    Barnett & Freeman (2001), p. 554. In a similar vein, Chang argues that actions involving experimentation can result in failure (1996, p. 591). Beck et al. also report findings on so called “failure traps” which describe the fact that unsuccessful attempts to change trigger further changes which result in more failure (2006, p. 6, see also the literature quoted there).Google Scholar
  19. 423.
    For an overview on the importance of financial distress in restructuring firms in Germany, see, e.g., the empirical analysis by Jostarndt (2006).Google Scholar
  20. 424.
    See Altman (1968) for details on how to calculate the z-score. Also, some financial databases may include data on z-scores.Google Scholar
  21. 425.
    Cf. Byerly et al. (2003), p. 541.Google Scholar
  22. 426.
    See Chapter 2.1 for an overview on modes of business exit.Google Scholar
  23. 427.
    Cf. Wiersema (1995), pp. 193 f.Google Scholar
  24. 428.
    Cf. Hayward & Shimizu (2006), p. 543 f.; Shimizu & Hitt (2005), p. 63.Google Scholar
  25. 429.
    Cf. Markides (1992b), p. 91.Google Scholar
  26. 430.
    See, e.g., Makhija (2004).Google Scholar
  27. 431.
    Cf. Montgomery et al. (1984), p. 833.Google Scholar
  28. 432.
    Cf. Byerly et al. (2003), p. 536 f.Google Scholar
  29. 433.
    Cf. Bartsch & Börner (2007), p. 7 and 15.Google Scholar
  30. 434.
    Refocusing vs. repositioning.Google Scholar
  31. 435.
    Strategic vs. non-strategic.Google Scholar
  32. 436.
    De-diversifications vs. disinvestments of parts of the core business.Google Scholar
  33. 437.
    For example, with 1 = refocusing, 2 = repositioning, 3 = both refocusing and repositioning, 4 = retrenchment.Google Scholar
  34. 438.
    Exceptions are, e.g., Burgelman (1994, 1996) and Byerly et al. (2003).Google Scholar
  35. 439.
    See Chapter 2 and the tabular overview on prior studies in Table 1 in Appendix 1.Google Scholar
  36. 440.
    See Chapter 3.3 for more details on a strategic perspective on legitimacy.Google Scholar
  37. 441.
    See, e.g., Succi-Lopez et al. (2003).Google Scholar
  38. 442.
    See, e.g., Bresser & Millonig (2003); Davis et al. (1994); Kraatz & Zajac (1996); Nicolai & Thomas (2006); Oliver (1997); Westphal & Zajac (1994, 1998, 2001); Zajac et al. (2000); Zajac & Westphal (2002); Zajac & Westphal (2004a).Google Scholar
  39. 443.
    Cf. Bergh (2003), pp. 135 f., and see also Chapter 1. The resource-based view has become a popular approach in strategic management research since the early 1990s. See, e.g., Barney (1991) and Nothnagel (2007) with reference to this theory.Google Scholar
  40. 444.
    See Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  41. 445.
    See Chapter 2 and the overview on prior studies in Table 1 in Appendix 1.Google Scholar
  42. 446.
    See Chapter 4 and Table 3 and 4 in Appendix 1.Google Scholar
  43. 447.
    See Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  44. 448.
    Admittedly, the results of such a test appear subjective. However, this recommended approach forces the author to go beyond a passing mention of his/her contribution and to articulate and defend it with well-conceived arguments.Google Scholar
  45. 449.
    Cf. Scott (1987), p. 509.Google Scholar
  46. 450.
    See, e.g., Bansal (2005); Nicolai & Thomas (2006); Zajac & Westphal (2004a).Google Scholar
  47. 451.
    For more details on this approach see Isabella (1990), p. 10 ff.Google Scholar
  48. 452.
    Empirical findings by, e.g., Sorenson (2003) further advance this idea.Google Scholar
  49. 453.
    For more details see Karim (2006).Google Scholar
  50. 454.
    I thank two anonymous interviewees from a German automotive company for pointing me into this direction.Google Scholar
  51. 455.
    See, e.g., Rosenbloom (2005); see also Haacke (2007), p. 60 ff.Google Scholar
  52. 456.
    Cf. Middelmann & Helmes (2005), p. 507.Google Scholar
  53. 457.
    See Lindgren & Spangberg (1981) for more details.Google Scholar
  54. 458.
    Referring to differences between exit modes and their outcomes, see, e.g., Chen & Guo (2005); Nixon et al. (2000).Google Scholar
  55. 459.
    For instance, the meta-analysis on transaction cost theory by David & Han (2004) or Nothnagel’s (2007) dissertation on empirical research from a resource-based perspective are beneficial examples for an approach of such a kind.Google Scholar
  56. 460.
    Cf. Villalonga & McGahan (2005), p. 1183.Google Scholar
  57. 461.
    Chang (1996), p. 587. Referring to this interrelationship, see also, e.g., Kalnins et al. (2006) who investigate so called “exit-entry pairs”.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008

Personalised recommendations