2010 - 2011 Research Colloquia Events
May 26, 2011
Where do new firms come from? Science and Innovation precursors of de novo population emergence in nanotechnology 1970-2004
SPEAKER: Kaye Schoonhoven, Professor of Organization and Strategy; and Sang-Joon Kim
UNIVERSITY: University of California, Irvine
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 112
LUNCH RSVP: Maria E. Gonzalez-Tan (Email: mgonzal9@uci.edu)
ABSTRACT:
We have learned a great deal about how technology and innovation processes operate within existing firms and across organizations and industries. This includes for example studies of in-house research, technology alliances, organizational networks, and the acquisition of innovative firms (e.g. Utterback, 1970; Utterback et al., 1988; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1996; Rosenkopf et al. 2001; Tushman, 2004). However we have limited understanding about how new populations of science-based organizations emerge from theoretical breakthroughs, scientific research, and patented innovations based on new science. We do not know how scientific knowledge and technical knowledge combine with the availability of human resources to impact new population emergence. In this paper we investigate these questions by drawing from institutional and ecological theory to predict the birth of de novo dedicated nanotechnology organizations from 1970 to 2004.
Over the period 1970-2004 we control for VC resource availability, prior de alio entrants, prior de novo entrants, and field legitimacy. We find that higher growth of scientific knowledge (published scientific articles) increases the new firm founding rate, whereas technical knowledge growth (patent filings) decreases the founding rate. With respect to the impact of human capital availability, growth of in the number of scientific authors has a curvilinear effect, initially increasing the birth rate with a subsequent decrease. Conversely, growth in the number of patent authors has the opposite curvilinear effect, initially decreasing births, and subsequently increasing the birth rate. The relationship of these results to existing theory is discussed.
(Host: Christine Beckman)
May 12, 2011
The Implicit Influence of Culture
SPEAKER: Professor Eric Uhlmann
UNIVERSITY: HEC Paris - School of Management, Management and Human Resources Department
TIME: 2:30 – 4 pm
WHERE: SB 117
ABSTRACT:
Three empirical studies highlight the implicit influence of culture, and conscious rationalizations for judgments driven by cultural stereotypes and values. Decision makers rationalized discrimination based on cultural stereotypes about men and women by changing the criteria regarded as essential for the job (Studies 1 and 2). A final study examined the effects of unconsciously activating traditional Protestant work values on the behaviors of contemporary Americans. Implicitly priming words related to divine salvation led Americans, but not members of comparison cultures, to work harder on an assigned task (Study 3).
Beall Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Department of Sociology, Center for Organizational Research
April 29, 2011
Economic Effects of the Co-Evolution of Universities and Firms: Tacit and Deeded Knowledge Protection and Acquisition
SPEAKER: Lynne G. Zucker, Department of Sociology
UNIVERSITY: University of California, Los Angeles
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 112
Light Lunch: 12:00 pm
ABSTRACT:
Strategies and incentives of firms behave like “genes” in providing a framework or set of recipes for reaching organizational objectives; the expression of these genes occurs in the skills that employees have. Near the knowledge frontier, the skills are often based on highly tacit knowledge and are difficult to learn without working directly with other scientists who already have these skills. As on-going discoveries are made, nearly continuous learning of this hands-on type is required, pressuring scientists in existing organizations to update knowledge and skills. We report preliminary evidence that those scientists who cross the firm-university boundary in their collaborations or personal employment histories are subsequently much more productive in patenting and in publishing than fellow employees, whether currently working in a firm or in a university. These skills (patenting- and publishing-related) are synergistic, with production of one skill set often producing more new discoveries and resources that are valuable to the production of the other.
Tacit knowledge also affects the ability of pre-existing organizations to acquire access to the new knowledge. When knowledge is sufficiently discontinuous, new firms are born in response, built around those scientists who have the new skills, while existing organizations must recruit or re-train to acquire skills needed for conversion. The value of tacit knowledge when observable and easily copied by others may be rapidly competed away, but if learning by doing is required to gain the knowledge, then it may be naturally excludable such that training by the scientist(s) who made the discovery may be required initially and this ability to do hands-on training to others may only gradually spread to others. We have found significant positive effects of tacit or defacto intellectual property rights on number of patents granted (deeded rights) and on number of products in development, and also find roughly equal effects of defacto and deeded rights on financial success of firms. These findings argue strongly for including both tacit-based rights and deeded rights in models predicting financial and other success.
(Host: Rick So)
April 15, 2011
Simple Heuristics for Two Generalized Clark-Scarf Inventory Systems
SPEAKER: Dr. Kevin Shang, Associate Professor. Associate Professor of Operations Management at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. Professor Shang received his MBA from UC Riverside in 1998 and PhD from UC Irvine in 2002.
UNIVERSITY: Fuqua School of Business, Duke University
TIME: 2:00 – 3:30 pm
WHERE: SB 116
ABSTRACT:
This talk summarizes two recent papers that aim to provide simple solutions to the Clark-Scarf (1960) inventory system with generalization.
The first paper considers the CS model with non-stationary demand. We propose a heuristic that can generate a near-optimal solution by solving independent, single-stage systems with the original problem data. This result enables us to reduce the computation time and complexity by allowing each location to simultaneously solve its own inventory problem. We further derive a closed-form approximation for the solution and use it to gain insights. The results can be extended to batch-ordering systems with Markov modulated demand and MMFE demand models.
The second paper considers the CS model with i.i.d demand and echelon (r,nQ,T) policies. Under such a policy, each stage reviews its inventory in every T period and orders according to an echelon (r,nQ) policy. Two types of fixed costs are considered: one is associated with each order batch Q, and the other is incurred for each inventory review. We provide an algorithm to find the optimal policy, and propose a heuristic that minimizes lower and upper bounds on the total cost function.
Future research directions that relate multi-echelon inventory models to emerging OM topics will be discussed at the end of the talk.
Note: Two papers related to the talk: 1, 2
(Host: Professor Kristin Behfar)
April 7, 2011
The Value of Diversity in Teams? An Integrated Perspective
SPEAKER: Katherine W. Phillips, Associate Professor of Management & Organizations
UNIVERSITY: Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 306
ABSTRACT:
In this talk I will provide an overview of my research on diversity in teams. The talk will culminate in the presentation of recent work showing that the purported downsides of social category diversity may ultimately be responsible for the benefits that accrue. A purported downside of social category diversity is decreased relationship focus (i.e., one’s focus on establishing a positive social bond with a coworker). However, this lack of relationship focus serves as a central mechanism that improves pre-meeting elaboration and ultimately decision-making performance in diverse settings. Moreover, when given the opportunity to accumulate important unique information diverse teams are more likely to acquire the information and use it properly for improved group performance while homogeneous teams are more likely to leave information on the table in an effort to avoid conflict. When they do accrue unique information they are less able to use it for effective performance. We discuss the value of studying pre- and early-stage interaction and propose a re-consideration of the “downside” of social category diversity.
(Host: Sreya Kolay)
April 1, 2011
Pain at the Pump: The Effect of Gasoline Prices on New and Used Automobile Markets
SPEAKER: Florian Zettelmeyer, John L. and Helen Kellogg Professor of Marketing
UNIVERSITY: Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University
TIME: 3:00 – 5:00 pm
WHERE: SB 116
ABSTRACT:
We estimate the effect of gasoline prices on short-run equilibrium prices and sales of new and used cars of different fuel economies. We find that gasoline prices have larger effects on the prices of used cars than of new cars, but that they have large effects on market shares and sales of new cars. We use our findings to estimate a component of the effect of an environmental tax on gasoline, and to investigate whether consumers are myopic about future gasoline costs when they buy cars.
Organization and Management Group
(Host: Christine Beckman)
March 28, 2011
Understanding Individual Evaluations of Group Success and Group Failure: An Inductive Approach
SPEAKER: Gerardo A. Okhuysen, Associate Professor, Management
UNIVERSITY: David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 117
SNACKS RSVP: Maria E. Gonzalez-Tan (Email: mgonzal9@uci.edu)
ABSTRACT:
What criteria do individuals use when they evaluate a work group as successful or unsuccessful? We address this question in two inductive studies, using concept mapping, to explore the cognitive frameworks that individuals use to judge success and failure in groups. In Study 1, we use a sample of experienced managers, recalling a specific group experience, to derive, sort, and categorize statements defining group success and failure. In study 2 we repeat the procedure using a context-specific sample of experienced education managers. Across the two studies we find that (a) individuals evaluate success and failure in terms of processes as well as outcomes; (b) successful and unsuccessful group outcomes are evaluated using qualitatively different criteria; (c) there are a number of categories used for evaluation that are not currently accounted for in our theories on groups. Our research highlights the importance of understanding the structure of individuals’ conceptions of group success and failure, particularly as these conceptions can motivate behavior in groups. We discuss the implications of these results for research and practice.
Don Beall Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship
(Host: Christine Beckman)
March 28, 2011
Understanding Individual Evaluations of Group Success and Group Failure: An Inductive Approach
SPEAKER: Geraldo Okhuysen, Associate Professor, Management. David Eccles Faculty Fellow. David Eccles School of Business
UNIVERSITY: David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah
TIME: 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 117
ABSTRACT:
What criteria do individuals use when they evaluate a work group as successful or unsuccessful? We address this question in two inductive studies, using concept mapping, to explore the cognitive frameworks that individuals use to judge success and failure in groups. In Study 1, we use a sample of experienced managers, recalling a specific group experience, to derive, sort, and categorize statements defining group success and failure. In study 2 we repeat the procedure using a context-specific sample of experienced education managers. Across the two studies we find that (a) individuals evaluate success and failure in terms of processes as well as outcomes; (b) successful and unsuccessful group outcomes are evaluated using qualitatively different criteria; (c) there are a number of categories used for evaluation that are not currently accounted for in our theories on groups. Our research highlights the importance of understanding the structure of individuals’ conceptions of group success and failure, particularly as these conceptions can motivate behavior in groups. We discuss the implications of these results for research and practice.
Beall Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship
(Hosts: Department of Sociology and Center for Organizational Research)
January 21, 2011
SPEAKER: Woody Powell, Professor, of Education, Sociology, Organizational Behavior, Management Science and Engineering, and Communication
UNIVERSITY: Stanford University
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 117
LUNCH RSVP: Maria E. Gonzalez-Tan (Email: mgonzal9@uci.edu)
Organizational and Institutional Genesis: The Emergence of High-Tech Clusters in the Life Sciences
ABSTRACT:
Most research on the emergence of high-tech clusters samples on successful cases, and works backwards to trace a narrative, often highlighting the role of specific individuals or groups. Our approach begins with the formation of a new field - - biotechnology in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and follows the field to the present. We emphasize the sequence of network formation, and the importance of organizational diversity and catalytic organizations that provide relational and normative glue. We examine eleven regions in the U.S. that were rich in resources - - ideas, money, and skills - - that could have lead to the formation of life science clusters. Three of the communities formed robust groupings, but most did not. Although local details are always relevant, our argument transcends the nuances of history in each community to specify the processes and mechanisms that foster catalytic growth. The necessary conditions are a diversity of for-profit, nonprofit, and public organizations, a local anchor tenant, and a dense web of local relationships. These features make possible cross-network transposition, whereby experience, status, and legitimacy in one domain are converted into ‘fresh’ action in another. The argument does not hinge on specific types of organizations or ingredients; indeed, it is general enough to accommodate multiple pathways.
Don Beall Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship
(Host: Christine Beckman)
September 30, 2010
Are Overconfident CEOs Better Innovators?
SPEAKER: Siew Hong Teoh
UNIVERSITY: The Paul Merage School of Business
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 112
LUNCH RSVP: Maria E. Gonzalez-Tan (Email: mgonzal9@uci.edu)
ABSTRACT:
Using options- and press-based proxies for CEO overconfidence (Malmendier and Tate 2005a, 2005b, 2008), we find that over the 1993-2003 period, firms with overconfident CEOs have greater return volatility, invest more in innovation, obtain more patents and patent citations, and achieve greater innovative success for given research and development (R&D) expenditure. Overconfident managers only achieve greater innovation than non-overconfident managers in innovative industries. Overconfidence is not associated with lower sales, ROA, or Q.
Don Beall Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship
(Host: Christine Beckman)
June 9, 2010
Are Family Firms Less Likely to Sacrifice Innovation Activities for Earnings Management?
SPEAKER: Joanna L. Ho
UNIVERSITY: The Paul Merage School of Business
TIME: 12:00 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: SB 116
ABSTRACT:
We examine whether managerial myopia, proxied by the reduction of research and development (R&D) spending, differs between family and non-family firms. Using data from the S&P 1500 firms, we find that, compared to non-family firms, family firms are less likely to cut R&D spending to meet short-term earnings goals. Furthermore, the likelihood of cutting R&D spending to meet short-term earnings goals is lower for actively-managed family firms than passively-managed family firms. In addition, our empirical analysis shows that, when under heightened pressure to manage earnings, the tendency to engage in accrual-based earnings management is not different between family and non-family firms; however, family firms are less likely to undertake real earnings management activities including the manipulation of cash flow from operations and discretionary expenses.
|