Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Asia Pacific Journal of Management
Published in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1/2021

08-06-2019

Attenuating the negative effects of network change on innovation: A whole network level analysis of Taiwanese business groups

Authors: Shuping Li, Sai Yayavaram

Published in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management | Issue 1/2021

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper investigates when and how changes in interorganizational networks affect innovation at a whole-network level. We consider three forms of network change as suggested by prior research on networks: membership change, change in network structure, and tie restructuring. We examine the independent and interactive effects between membership change and other types of network changes on group innovation. Our longitudinal analyses of the intra-group network changes in Taiwanese business groups show that membership change in the intra-group networks has a negative effect on group-level innovation. However, the negative effect is attenuatedwhen the centralization of intra-group networks decreases and when ties involving hub firms are reconfigured. The findings provide implications for both inter-firm network governance and innovation management, especially in the context of business groups.
previous article Who controls the Indian economy: The role of families and communities in the Indian economy
next article Project performance in emerging market: The influence of cultural distance and business group affiliation

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
As a robustness check, we also conducted additional analyses with one-year lead dependent variable, finding support for Hypotheses 1 and 3 but not Hypothesis 2.
 
2
We chose not to identify hub firms based on their degree centrality in the buyer-supplier network because over 50% of our observations have more than one central firm. By contrast, only around 15% of our observations have more than one hub firm if we refer to the core business in the business group. Thus, the latter approach causes fewer problems.
 
3
One standard deviation below mean membership change is equal to −.86. However, membership change can take on only positive values. Therefore, we considered zero instead of one standard deviation below mean for membership change when calculating the effect size.
 
4
Note that we measure centralization change as the difference between centralization in the current period and the centralization in the previous period. A negative value implies that decentralization has increased. Thus, a positive moderating effect of decentralization implies that the expected sign of the coefficient of the interaction term is negative.
 
Literature
Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., Short, J. C., Moliterno, T. P., & Mahony, D. M. 2011. Network theory of organization: A multilevel approach. Journal of Management, 37(2): 443–467.
Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.
Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. 2012. The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, 23(2): 434–448.
Baum, J. A., Shipilov, A. V., & Rowley, T. J. 2003. Where do small worlds come from? Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4): 697–725.
Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. 2000. Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 267–294.
Bertrand, M., Johnson, S., Samphantharak, K., & Schoar, A. 2008. Mixing family with business: A study of Thai business groups and the families behind them. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3): 466–498.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. 1993. Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 441–470.
Burt, R. 1992. Structural holes. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Chang, S.-J. 2006. Business groups in East Asia: Post-crisis restructuring and new growth. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 407–417.
Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. 2000. Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 429–448.
Chang, S., Chung, C., & Mahmood, I. 2006. When and how does business group affiliation promote firm innovation? A tale of two emerging economies. Organization Science, 17(5): 637–656.
Chung, C.-N. 2006. Beyond guanxi: Network contingencies in Taiwanese business groups. Organization Studies, 27(4): 461–489.
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. 2000. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552.
Danneels, E. 2003. Tight–loose coupling with customers: The enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6): 559–576.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 659–669.
Doz, Y. L. 1996. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes? Strategic management journal, 17(1): 55–83.
Dyer, J., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.
Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1): 117–132.
Granovetter, M. 1995a. Coase revisited: Business groups in the modern economy. Industrial & Corporate Change, 4(1): 93–130.
Granovetter, M. 1995b. Coase revisited: Business groups in the modern economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4(1): 93–140.
Granovetter, M. 2005. Business groups and social organization. NJ:Princeton University Press.
Greve, H. R., Baum, J. A. C., Mitsuhashi, H., & Rowley, T. J. 2010. Built to last but falling apart: Cohesion, friction, and withdrawal from interfirm alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2): 302–322.
Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly: 619–652.
Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5): 397–420.
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1398–1438.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149–164.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4): 716–749.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 9–30.
Hoetker, G. 2005. How much you know versus how well I know you: Selecting a supplier for a technically innovative component. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1): 75–96.
Jarillo, J. 1988. On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9(1): 31–41.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.
Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. (2006). Interorganizational ties and business group boundaries: Evidence from an emerging economy. Organization Science, 17(3): 333–352.
Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2007. Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2): 331–372.
Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 317–357.
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W., & Hanke, R. 2006. A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 1031–1048.
Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Hong, J. (2004). The evolution and restructuring of diversified business groups in emerging markets: The lessons from chaebols in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(1-2): 25–48.
Kim, J. Y., Howard, M., Cox Pahnke, E., & Boeker, W. (2016). Understanding network formation in strategy research: Exponential random graph models. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1): 22–44.
Kim, T.-Y., Oh, H., & Swaminathan, A. 2006. Framing interorganizational network change: A netowrk inertia perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 704–720.
Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 405–425.
Koka, B., Madhavan, R., & Prescott, J. 2006. The evolution of interfirm networks: Environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 721–737.
Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. 2007. The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4): 667–694.
Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4): 317–338.
Luo, X., & Chung, C.-N. 2005. Keeping it all in the family: The role of particularistic relationships in business group performance during institutional transition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 404–439.
Madhavan, R., Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. (1998). Networks in transition: How industry events (re) shape interfirm relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5): 439–459.
Mahmood, I., Chung, C.-N., & Mitchell, W. 2013. The evolving impact of combinatorial opportunities and exhaustion on innovation by business groups as market development increases: The case of Taiwan. Management Science, 59(5): 1142–1161.
Mahmood, I. P., & Mitchell, W. 2004. Two faces: Effects of business groups on innovation in emerging economies. Management Science, 50(10): 1348–13651.
Mahmood, I. P., Zhu, H., & Zajac, E. J. 2011. Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8): 820–848.
Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2015). A review of interorganizational collaboration dynamics. Journal of Management, 41(5): 1338–1360.
Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. 1992. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Boston, Mass:Harvard Business School Press.
Numazaki, I. (1986). Networks of Taiwanese big business: A preliminary analysis. Modern China, 12(4): 487–534.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2): 203–223.
Palepu, K. 1985. Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measure. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3): 239–255.
Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1115–1166.
Podolny, J., & Page, K. 1998. Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1): 57–76.
Powell, W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 116–145.
Provan, K., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. 2007. Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3): 479–516.
Provan, K., & Milward, H. 1995. A preliminary theory of Interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1): 1–33.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 240–267.
Salancik, G. 1995. Wanted: A good network theory of organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2): 345–349.
Scherer, F. M. 1965. Firm size, market structure, opportunity, and the output of patented inventions. The American Economic Review, 55(5): 1097–1125.
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. 1994. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5): 387–394.
Shih, S. 1996. Me too is not my style. Taipei:Aspire Academy.
Shih, S. 2005. Millennium transformation: Change management for new Acer. Taipei:Aspire Academy.
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6): 650–669.
Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. 1998. Organizing and evaluating interfirm networks: A Structurationist perspective on network processes and effectiveness. Organization Science, 9(3): 265–284.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2): 447–504.
Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1994). Advances in the social and behavioral sciences from social network analysis. Sage Focus Editions, 171: xi–xi.
Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-based malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2): 333–362.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7): 587–613.
Metadata
Title
Attenuating the negative effects of network change on innovation: A whole network level analysis of Taiwanese business groups
Authors
Shuping Li
Sai Yayavaram
Publication date
08-06-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Asia Pacific Journal of Management / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0217-4561
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9958
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9621-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1/2021 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Does media coverage help firms “lobby” for government subsidies? Evidence from China

OriginalPaper

Who controls the Indian economy: The role of families and communities in the Indian economy

OriginalPaper

A meta-analytic review of the consequences of servant leadership: The moderating roles of cultural factors

OriginalPaper

The consequence of differences: How heterogeneity in practice adaptations affects the diffusion process

Perspectives

China has emerged as an aspirant economy

OriginalPaper

Project performance in emerging market: The influence of cultural distance and business group affiliation

Premium Partner

    Image Credits