Seeking Value Through Deviation? Economic Impacts of IT Overinvestment and Underinvestment

References

• Agarwal R, Tiwana A (2015) Evolvable systems: Through the looking glass of IS. Inform. Systems Res. 26(3):473–479.Link, Google Scholar
• Aggarwal RK, Samwick AA (2006) Empire-builders and shirkers: Investment, firm performance, and managerial incentives. J. Corporate Finance 12(3):489–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ali A, Chen TY, Radhakrishnan S (2007) Corporate disclosures by family firms. J. Accounting Econom. 44(1–2):238–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson RC, Reeb DM (2003) Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. J. Finance 58(3):1301–1328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson RC, Reeb DM (2004) Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(2):209–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP (2008) Red Queen Among Organizations: How Competitiveness Evolves (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnett WP, Hansen MT (1996) The red queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management J. 17(S1):139–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Cohen A (2005) The costs of entrenched boards. J. Financial Econom. 78(2):409–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Cremers KJM, Peyer UC (2011) The CEO pay slice. J. Financial Econom. 102(1):199–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Kraakman R, Triantis G (2000) Stock pyramids, cross-ownership and dual class equity: The mechanisms and agency costs of separating control from cash-flow rights. Morck R, ed. Concentrated Corporate Ownership (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 295–318.Google Scholar
• Beckman C, Burton D (2008) Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organ. Sci. 19(1):3–24.Link, Google Scholar
• Bennedsen M, Nielsen KM, Perez-Gonzalez F, Wolfenzon D (2007) Inside the family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance. Quart. J. Econom. 122(2):647–691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergstresser D, Philippon T (2006) CEO incentives and earnings management. J. Financial Econom. 80(3):511–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berle A, Means G (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property (Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York).Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj A, Bharadwaj S, Konsynski B (1999) Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin’s q. Management Sci. 45(7):1008–1024.Link, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj S, Bharadwaj A, Bendoly E (2007) The performance effects of complementarities between information systems, marketing, manufacturing, and supply chain processes. Inform. Systems Res. 18(4):437–453.Link, Google Scholar
• Bolton P, Scheinkman J, Xiong W (2006) Executive compensation and short-termist behavior in speculative markets. Rev. Econom. Stud. 73(3):577–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bruque S, Moyano J (2007) Organisational determinants of information technology adoption and implementation in SMEs: The case of family and cooperative firms. Technovation 27(5):241–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM, Yang S (2002) Intangible assets: Computers and organizational capital. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity 2002(1):137–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chari MDR, Devaraj S, David P (2008) The impact of information technology investments and diversification strategies on firm performance. Management Sci. 54(1):224–234.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen S, Huang Y, Li N, Shevlin TJ (2016) Quasi-indexer ownership and corporate tax-planning. Working paper, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
• Chwelos P, Ramirez R, Kraemer KL, Melville NP (2010) Does technological progress alter the nature of information technology as a production input? New evidence and new results. Inform. Systems Res. 21(2):392–408.Link, Google Scholar
• Crane AD, Koch A (2016) Shareholder litigation and ownership structure: Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print October 13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2561.Link, Google Scholar
• Dalton DR, Daily CM, Ellstrand AE, Johnson JL (1998) Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management J. 19(3):269–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denis DK, McConnell JJ (2003) International corporate governance. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 38(1):1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Derfus PJ, Maggitti PG, Grimm CM, Smith KG (2008) Red Queen effect: Competitive actions and firm performance. Acad. Management J. 51(1):61–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dewan S, Michael SC, Min CK (1998) Firm characteristics and investments in information technology: Scale and scope effects. Inform. Systems Res. 9(3):219–232.Link, Google Scholar
• Dewan S, Shi C, Gurbaxani V (2007) Investigating the risk-return relationship of information technology investment: Firm-level empirical analysis. Management Sci. 53(12):1829–1842.Link, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garen J (1984) The returns to schooling: A selectivity bias approach with a continuous choice variable. Econometrica 52(5):1199–1218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gomez-Mejia LR, Makri M, Kintana ML (2010) Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. J. Management Stud. 47(2):223–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haans RFJ, Pieters C, He ZL (2016) Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management J. 37(7):1177–1195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall JA, Liedtka S (2005) CEO compensation, financial performance and large-scale information technology outsourcing decisions. J. Management Inform. Systems 22(1):193–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He J, Mahoney JT, Wang HC (2009) Firm capability, corporate governance and competitive behaviour: A multi-theoretic framework. Internat. J. Strategic Change Management 1(4):293–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirsch P, Andrews JAY (1984) Administrators’ response to performance and value challenges: Stance, symbols, and behavior. Sergiovanni TJ, Corbally JE, eds. Leadership and Organizational Culture (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL), 170–185.Google Scholar
• Hoskisson RE, Wan WP, Yiu D, Hitt MA (1999) Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. J. Management 25(3):417–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1998) An information company in Mexico: Extending the resource-based view of the firm to a developing country context. Inform. Systems Res. 9(4):342–361.Link, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC (1989) Eclipse of the public corporation. Harvard Bus. Rev. 67(5):61–74.Google Scholar
• Kobelsky KW, Richardson VJ, Smith RE, Zmud RW (2008) Determinants and consequences of firm information technology budgets. Accounting Rev. 83(4):957–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• La Porta R, Lopez-de-Silanes F, Shleifer A (1999) Corporate ownership around the world. J. Finance 54(2):471–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li X (2009) Managerial entrenchment with strategic information technology: A dynamic perspective. J. Management Inform. Systems 25(4):183–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller TL, Grimes MG, McMullen JS, Vogus TJ (2012) Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Acad. Management Rev. 37(4):616–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mithas S, Rust RT (2016) How information technology strategy and investments influence firm performance: Conjectures and empirical evidence. MIS Quart. 40(1):223–245.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mithas S, Tafti A, Mitchell W (2013) How a firm’s competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence digital business strategy. MIS Quart. 37(2):511–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mithas S, Tafti A, Bardhan I, Goh JM (2012) Information technology and firm profitability: Mechanisms and empirical evidence. MIS Quart. 36(1):205–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitra S (2005) Information technology as an enabler of growth in firms: An empirical assessment. J. Management Inform. Systems 22(2):279–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morck R, Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1988) Management ownership and market valuation: An empirical analysis. J. Financial Econom. 20(1):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nolan R, McFarlan FW (2005) Information technology and the board of directors. Harvard Bus. Rev. 83(10):96–106.Google Scholar
• Ogbonna E, Harris LC (2005) The adoption and use of information technology: A longitudinal study of a mature family firm. New Tech., Work Employment 20(1):2–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Opler TC, Titman S (1994) Financial distress and corporate performance. J. Finance 49(3):1015–1040.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rai A, Tang X (2014) IT-enabled business models: A conceptual framework and a coevolution perspective for future research. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):1–14.Link, Google Scholar
• Rai A, Pavlou PA, Im G, Du S (2012) Interfirm IT capability profiles and communications for cocreating relational value: Evidence from the logistics industry. MIS Quart. 36(1):233–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reger RK, Huff AS (1993) Strategic groups: A cognitive perspective. Strategic Management J. 14(2):103–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quart. 27(2):237–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Semadeni M, Withers M, Certo S (2014) The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research. Strategic Management J. 35(7):1070–1079.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Setia P, Venkatesh V, Joglekar S (2013) Leveraging digital technologies: How information quality leads to localized capabilities and customer service performance. MIS Quart. 37(2):565–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny RW (1986) Large shareholders and corporate control. J. Political Econom. 94(3):461–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tambe P, Hitt LM, Brynjolfsson E (2012) The extroverted firm: How external information practices affect innovation and productivity. Management Sci. 58(5):843–859.Link, Google Scholar
• Teo HH, Wei KK, Benbasat I (2003) Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quart. 27(1):19–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villalonga B, Amit R (2006) How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value? J. Financial Econom. 80(2):385–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang DC (2006) Founding family ownership and earnings quality. J. Accounting Res. 44(3):619–656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xue L, Mithas S, Ray G (2014) Earnings management and IT investments: an examination of IT infrastructure development. Proc. Thirty Fifth Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems, Auckland, NZ.Google Scholar
• Xue L, Ray G, Sambamurthy V (2012) Efficiency or innovation: How do industry environments moderate the effects of firms’ IT asset portfolios? MIS Quart. 36(2):509–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yao Y, Zhu KX (2012) Do electronic linkages reduce the bullwhip effect? An empirical analysis of the U.S. manufacturing supply chains. Inform. Systems Res. 23(3):1042–1055.Link, Google Scholar
• Zellweger TM, Kellermanns FW, Chrisman JJ, Chua JH (2012) Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organ. Sci. 23(3):851–868.Link, Google Scholar