Changing Routines: A Process Model of Vicarious Group Learning in Pharmaceutical R&D
Prior research has indicated that groups frequently change their routines drawing on the experience of others and that this has significant performance effects. But how group routine change occurs through this process of vicarious learning is not clear. Using a qualitative field study of drug development teams in one pharmaceutical firm, I examine how groups change routines drawing on the prior related experience of other groups. An inductive analysis suggests that this process does not follow the simple find-and-copy model often assumed in the literature and identifies four distinct subprocesses involved: identification, translation, adoption, and continuation. This process model adds to understanding of vicarious learning by showing that it is a more varied process than it is commonly construed to be and that not only experience-seeking groups, but also groups that are the source of the experience, play important and shifting roles throughout. Thus, this study contributes to theories about how groups change their routines by elucidating how they alter their routines through vicarious learning.
The Process of Schema Emergence: Assimilation, Deconstruction, Unitization and the Plurality of Analogies

Schemas are a central concept in strategy and organization theory. Yet, despite the importance of schemas, little is known about how they emerge. Our in-depth historical analysis of how groups in the life insurance industry developed their schema for the computer from 1945–1975 addresses this gap. We identify three key processes—assimilation, deconstruction, and unitization—that collectively explain and resolve an inherent tension related to schema emergence: how to make the unfamiliar familiar but conceptually distinct. We also find that each process relates to analogical transfer, but in a more pluralistic and dynamic way than the existing literature describes. Broadly, these findings have important implications for organizational change and managerial cognition.




Performance of acquirers of divested assets: evidence from the U.S. Software industry
We provide a comparative analysis of acquirer returns in acquisitions of public firms, private firms, and divested assets. On the basis of a sample of 5079 acquisitions by U.S. software industry companies during 1988–2008, we find that acquisitions of divested assets outperform acquisitions of privately held firms, which in turn outperform acquisitions of publicly held firms. While the higher returns for acquisitions of divested assets relative to stand-alone acquisition targets can be explained by market efficiency arguments, seller distress and improved asset fit further enhance the positive returns of acquirers of divested assets consistent with the relative bargaining power explanation. Finally, we find that the effects of these buyer bargaining advantages are mutually strengthening and that they also hold for longer-term acquirer performance.
Risk abatement as a strategy for r&d investments in family firms


The behavioral agency model suggests family firms invest less in R&D than non-family firms to protect their socioemotional wealth. Studies support this contention but do not explain how family firms make R&D investments. We hypothesize that when performance exceeds aspirations, family firms manage socioemotional and economic objectives by making exploitative R&D investments that lead to more reliable and less risky sales levels. However, performance below aspirations leads to exploratory R&D investments that result in potentially higher but less reliable sales levels. Using a risk abatement model, our analyses of 847 firms over 10 years supports our hypotheses.