Resource Dependence Dynamics: Partner Reactions to Mergers

References

• Ahuja G, Polidoro F Jr, Mitchell W (2009) Structural homophily or social asymmetry? The formation of alliances by poorly embedded firms. Strategic Management J. 30(9):941–958.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bae J, Gargiulo M (2004) Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Acad. Management J. 47(6):843–853.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker WE (1990) Market networks and corporate behavior. Amer. J. Sociol. 96(3):589–625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker WE, Faulkner RR, Fisher GA (1998) Hazards of the market: The continuity and dissolution of interorganizational market relationships. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 63(2):147–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JAC, Cowan R, Jonard N (2010) Network-independent partner selection and the evolution of innovation networks. Management Sci. 56(11):2094–2110.Link, Google Scholar
• Benjamin BA, Podolny JM (1999) Status, quality and social order in the California wine industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(3):563–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boeker W, Goodstein J (1991) Organizational performance and adaptation: Effects of environment and performance on changes in board composition. Acad. Management J. 34(4):805–826.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multi-level perspective. Acad. Management J. 47(6):795–814.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Broschak JP (2004) Managers’ mobility and market interface: The effect of managers’ career mobility on the dissolution of market ties. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(4):608–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1980) Autonomy in a social topology. Amer. J. Sociol. 85(4):892–925.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Gelbach J, Miller D (2011) Robust inference with multi-way clustering. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 29(2):238–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casciaro T, Piskorski MJ (2005) Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(2):167–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castellucci F, Ertug G (2010) What’s in it for them? Advantages of higher-status partners in exchange relationships. Acad. Management J. 53(1):149–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS (1977) Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. Sociol. Quart. 18(1):62–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence relations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 27(1):31–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S (1997) Inter-industry merger patterns and resource dependence: A replication and extension of Pfeffer (1972). Strategic Management J. 18(10):787–810.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galanter M, Palay T (1991) Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M (1993) Two-step leverage: Managing constraint in organizational politics. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(1):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graffin SD, Wade JB, Porac JF, McNamee RC (2008) The impact of CEO status diffusion on the economic outcomes of other senior managers. Organ. Sci. 19(3):457–474.Link, Google Scholar
• Grembowski DE, Cook KS, Patrick DL, Roussel AE (2002) Managed care and the US health care system: A social exchange perspective. Soc. Sci. Medicine 54(8):1167–1180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR, Baum JAC, Mitsuhashi H, Rowley TJ (2010) Built to last but falling apart: Cohesion, friction, and withdrawal from interfirm alliances. Acad. Management J. 53(2):302–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Management J. 38(1):85–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Gargiulo M (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from? Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1439–1493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gundlach GT, Cadotte ER (1994) Exchange interdependence and interfirm interaction: Research in a simulated channel setting. J. Marketing Res. 31(4):516–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haspeslagh DB, Jemison PC (1991) Managing Acquisitions: Creating Value Through Corporate Renewal (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heide JB, John G (1988) The role of dependence balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in conventional channels. J. Marketing 52(1):20–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katila R, Rosenberger JD, Eisenhardt KM (2008) Swimming with sharks: Technology ventures, defense mechanisms and corporate relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2):295–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keister LA (1999) Where do strong ties come from? A dyad analysis of the strength of interfirm exchange relations during China’s economic transition. Internat. J. Organ. Anal. 7(1):5–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khaire M (2010) Young and no money? Never mind: The material impact of social resources on new venture growth. Organ. Sci. 21(1):168–185.Link, Google Scholar
• Larson A (1992) Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings. A study in the governance of exchange relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(1):76–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, Fichman M (1988) Dynamics of interorganizational attachments: Auditor-client relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 33(3):345–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lunnan R, Haugland SA (2008) Predicting and measuring alliance performance: A multidimensional analysis. Strategic Management J. 29(5):545–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitsuhashi H, Greve HR (2009) A matching theory of alliance formation and organizational success: Complementarity and compatibility. Acad. Management J. 52(5):975–995.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS (1989) Similarity of political behavior among large American corporations. Amer. J. Sociol. 95(2):401–424.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mizruchi MS, Yoo M (2002) Interorganizational power and dependence. Baum JAC, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 599–620.Google Scholar
• Parpis E (2004) U.S. agency of the year: Berlin Cameron/Red Cell: Riding high on its Coke win, the 7-year-old shop proves it’s the real thing. Adweek 45(2). Retrieved from Factiva Novem-ber 21, 2011. http://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=ADWE000020040117e01c0000v&cat=a&ep=ASE.Google Scholar
• Paruchuri S, Nerkar A, Hambrick DC (2006) Acquisition integration and productivity losses in the technical core: Disruption of inventors in acquired companies. Organ. Sci. 17(5):545–562.Link, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1972a) Merger as a response to organizational interdependence. Admin. Sci. Quart. 17(3):382–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J (1972b) Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 17(2):218–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Nowak P (1976) Joint venture and interorganizational interdependence. Admin. Sci. Quart. 21(3):398–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organizations (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Piskorski MJ, Casciaro T (2006) When more power makes actors worse off: Turning a profit in the American economy. Soc. Forces 85(2):1011–1036.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):829–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (2001) Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(1):33–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pontikes E, Negro G, Rao H (2010) Stained red: A study of stigma by association to blacklisted artists during the “red scare” in Hollywood, 1945 to 1960. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 75(3):456–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao H, Greve HR, Davis GF (2001) Fool’s gold: Social proof in the initiation and abandonment of coverage by Wall Street analysts. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(3):502–526.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogan M (2014a) Executive departures without client losses: The role of multiplex ties in exchange partner retention. Acad. Management J. 57(2):563–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogan M (2014b) Too close for comfort? The effect of embeddedness and competitive overlap on client retention following an acquisition. Organ. Sci. 25(1):185–203.Link, Google Scholar
• Rowley TJ, Greve HR, Rao H, Baum JAC, Shipilov AV (2005) Time to break up: The social and instrumental antecedents of exit from interfirm exchange cliques. Acad. Management J. 48(3):499–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seabright MA, Levinthal DA, Fichman M (1992) Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management J. 35(1):122–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov AV, Li SX, Greve HR (2011) The prince and the pauper: Search and brokerage in the initiation of status-heterophilous ties. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1418–1434.Link, Google Scholar
• Simpson B, Macy MW (2004) Power, identity, and collective action in social exchange. Soc. Forces 82(4):1375–1411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart T (2000) Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management J. 21(8):791–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Nordenflycht A (2007) Is public ownership bad for professional service firms? Ad agency ownership, performance and creativity. Acad. Management J. 50(2):429–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Nordenflycht A (2011) Firm size and industry structure under human capital intensity: Insights from the evolution of the global advertising industry. Organ. Sci. 22(1):141–157.Link, Google Scholar
• Zajac EJ (1988) Interlocking directorates as an interorganizational strategy: A test of critical assumptions. Acad. Management J. 31(2):428–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Security analysts and the legitimacy of the corporate product. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1439.Crossref, Google Scholar