On the adoption decision and the intensity of use of complementary innovations: The intra firm diffusion of management practices across UK establishments

This paper contributes to the literature on the intra-firm diffusion of innovations by investigating the factors that affect the firm’s decision to adopt and use sets of complementary innovations. We define complementary innovations those innovations whose joint use generates super additive gains, i.e. the gain from the joint adoption is higher than the sum of the gains derived from the adoption of each innovation in isolation. From a theoretical perspective, we present a simple decision model, whereby the firm decides ‘whether’ and ‘how much’ to invest in each of the innovations under investigation based upon the expected profit gain from each possible combination of adoption and use. The model shows how the extent of complementarity among the innovations can affect the firm’s profit gains and therefore the likelihood that the firm will adopt these innovations jointly, rather than individually. From an empirical perspective, we focus on four sets of management practices, namely operating (OMP), monitoring (MMP), targets (TMP) and incentives (IMP) management practices. We show that these sets of practices, although to a different extent, are complementary to each other. Then, we construct a synthetic indicator of the depth of their use. The resulting intra-firm index is built to reflect not only the number of practices adopted but also the depth of their individual use and the extent of their complementarity. The empirical testing of the decision model is carried out using the evidence from the adoption behaviour of a sample of 1,238 UK establishments present in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS). Our empirical results show that the intra-firm profitability based model is a good model in that it can explain more of the variability of joint adoption than models based upon the variability of adoption and use of individual practices. We also investigate whether a number of firm specific and market characteristics by affecting the size of the gains (which the joint adoption of innovations can generate) may drive the intensity of use of the four innovations. We find that establishment size, whether foreign owned, whether exposed to an international market and the degree of homogeneity of the final product are important determinants of the intensity of the joint adoption of the four innovations. Most importantly, our results point out that the factors that the economics of innovation literature has been showing to affect the intensity of use of a technological innovation do also affect the intensity of use of sets of innovative management practices. However, they can explain only a small part of the diversity of their joint adoption use by the firms in the sample.

Opportunism, hold-up and the (contractual) theory of the firm

This paper considers the role of opportunism in three contractual theories of the firm: rent-seeking theory, property rights theory, and agency theory. In each case I examine whether it is possible to have a functioning contractual theory of the firm without recourse to opportunism. Without opportunism firms may still exist as a result of issues arising from (incomplete) contracting. Far from posing a problem for the theory of the firm, questioning the role of opportunism and the ubiquity of the hold-up problem helps us understand more about the purpose and functions of contracts which go beyond mere incentive alignment.

Family relocation: worse or just different?

Organisational relocation directly affects the family. It is thus often assumed that relocation is more difficult for individuals with families; however, few studies actually examine this premise. This paper investigates whether family status plays a role in relocation by comparing single individuals to married individuals. The paper uses qualitative and quantitative indicators to uncover subtle nuances between the groups and, on the basis of these, develops proposition for future research to test. Quantitative indicators highlight several important differences: Individuals with families report a greater number of moving tasks and difficulties; family relocation is viewed as more complex because of the impact of non-relocation related factors; and employees with families experience more negative and positive consequences of relocation. Qualitative techniques help to uncover subtle differences between groups and suggest that although relocation for families is different from individual relocation, it is not necessarily worse. RP0721.

Relocation:a more complete picture

The idea that relocation can cause detriment in the lives of individuals is now relatively accepted in the management community, however much less attention has been devoted to studying the benefits of relocation. We present a more balanced picture by examining both positive and negative consequences of geographical transience in a sample of frequent movers. In total, 29 employees without families, 33 employees with families, 33 spouses, and 15 children participated in interviews for this research (N = 110). The research outlines 160 relocation consequences, including 53 positive outcomes not previously considered. Our findings confirm that relocation can bring about short- and long-term benefits for individuals including task performance, skill development, learning, growth, job satisfaction, continued development, attractive job assignments, career advancement and increased responsibility. In conclusion, findings suggest that, at least in terms of relocation, a more complete picture is actually also a more positive picture. So, whilst organisations should continue to aim to reduce or eliminate the negative consequences of relocation, they should also seek to maintain or enhance the positive outcomes of transience.

Using grounded theory for theory building in operations management research:a study on inter-firm relationship governance

Purpose – Qualitative theory building approaches, such as grounded theory method (GTM), are still not very widespread and rigorously applied in operations management (OM) research. Yet it is agreed that more systematic observation of current industrial phenomena is necessary to help managers deal with their problems. The purpose of this paper is to provide an example to help guide other researchers on using GTM for theory building in OM research. Design/methodology/approach – A GTM study in the German automotive industry consisting of 31 interviews is followed by a validation stage comprising a survey (110 responses) and a focus group. Findings – The result is an example of conducting GTM research in OM, illustrated by the development of the novel collaborative enterprise governance framework for inter-firm relationship governance in the German automotive industry. Research limitations/implications – GTM is appropriate for qualitative theory building research, but the resultant theories need further testing. Research is necessary to identify the transferability of the collaborative enterprise governance concept to other industries than automotive, to other organisational areas than R&D and to product and service settings that are less complex and innovative. Practical implications – The paper helps researchers make more informed use of GTM when engaging in qualitative theory building research in OM. Originality/value – There is a lack of explicit and well-informed use of GTM in OM research because of poor understanding. This paper addresses this deficiency. The collaborative enterprise governance framework is a significant contribution in an area of growing importance within OM.

Stock market efficiency, the small firm effect and cointegration

The cointegration methodology commonly used for testing the efficiency of the foreign exchange market is applied to a sample of UK share prices. Specifically we test for static market efficiency in the share prices of small and large firms, using monthly data from January 1975 to December 1989. The empirical findings provide evidence of market efficiency for portfolios of large firms but of inefficiency for small firm portfolios. These results are indicative of a small firm effect in the UK stock market.