IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/sbusec/v58y2022i3d10.1007_s11187-021-00452-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration-exploitation and acquisition likelihood in new ventures

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Keyhani

    (University of Calgary)

  • Yuval Deutsch

    (York University)

  • Anoop Madhok

    (York University)

  • Moren Lévesque

    (York University)

Abstract

The market for acquisitions has been a blind spot in exploration-exploitation research in the new venture context. The introduction of the acquisition exit outcome as a performance dimension for new ventures, especially among high-tech ventures, shifts the traditional temporal logic of exploration-exploitation theory by introducing previously unacknowledged short-term benefits of exploration. We bring the acquisition outcome into the picture and investigate the relationship between the exploration-exploitation continuum and profitability, survival, and acquisition likelihood simultaneously. Using the Kauffman Firm Survey data, we provide evidence for a link between exploration and the likelihood of acquisition (defined as the business being sold to or merged with another business), although industry technology level poses a boundary condition such that the association is not observed in low- and medium-technology firms. An inverse U-shaped relationship that is monotone negative for most of the data range was found between exploration and the profitability of low- and medium-tech firms, and a negatively linear relationship was found for exploration and the profitability of high-tech firms. Our findings lend some support to the viability of “born to flip” strategies involving comparatively higher exploration levels in high-tech start-ups and sacrifice of short-term profitability. Plain English Summary Built-to-flip strategy really does work, but only for some startups. There has been a debate on whether start-ups should be managed specifically with the aim of short-term exit through M&As (built to flip) or if they should always focus on long-term viability (built to last). We tap into the Kauffman Firm Survey data to provide evidence-based insights on this issue. Our results support the viability of “built-to-flip” strategies among some new firms at least when it comes to the balance of exploration and exploitation, measured as relative allocation of employees to R&D vs. sales. High-tech ventures that exited through M&A had higher exploration levels compared to all other sub-groups including high-tech ventures that closed or did not exit, and all low- and medium-tech ventures. Among high-tech ventures, increased exploration does—to a point—lead to a higher likelihood of acquisition, but it comes at the price of reduced profitability. After this peak point, further increase in exploration reduces both acquisition likelihood and profitability.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Keyhani & Yuval Deutsch & Anoop Madhok & Moren Lévesque, 2022. "Exploration-exploitation and acquisition likelihood in new ventures," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 1475-1496, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:sbusec:v:58:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11187-021-00452-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11187-021-00452-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11187-021-00452-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11187-021-00452-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard A. D'Aveni & Giovanni Battista Dagnino & Ken G. Smith, 2010. "The age of temporary advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(13), pages 1371-1385, December.
    2. repec:mpr:mprres:6385 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Puranam, Phanish & Singh, Harbir & Zollo, Maurizio, 2003. "A Bird in the Hand or Two in the Bush?: Integration Trade-offs in Technology-grafting Acquisitions," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 179-184, April.
    4. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Margarethe F. Wiersema & Harry P. Bowen, 2009. "The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: issues and methods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 679-692, June.
    6. Bakker, Gerben, 2013. "Money for nothing: How firms have financed R&D-projects since the Industrial Revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1793-1814.
    7. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    8. Chang, Yi-Ying & Hughes, Mathew, 2012. "Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-17.
    9. Jo Thori Lind & Halvor Mehlum, 2010. "With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U‐Shaped Relationship," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(1), pages 109-118, February.
    10. Paul E. Bierly III & Paula S. Daly, 2007. "Alternative Knowledge Strategies, Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small Manufacturing Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(4), pages 493-516, July.
    11. Janice Ballou & Tom Barton & David DesRoches & Frank Potter & E.J. Reedy & Alicia Robb & Scott Shane & Zhanyun Zhao, "undated". "Kauffman Firm Survey: Results from the Baseline and First Follow-Up Surveys," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 4a8c01fa02f24e7aada8b68dd, Mathematica Policy Research.
    12. Hill, Susan A. & Birkinshaw, Julian, 2008. "Strategy-organization configurations in corporate venture units: Impact on performance and survival," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 423-444, July.
    13. Panos Desyllas & Alan Hughes, 2009. "The revealed preferences of high technology acquirers: An analysis of the innovation characteristics of their targets," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(6), pages 1089-1111, November.
    14. Bennet A. Zelner, 2009. "Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(12), pages 1335-1348, December.
    15. Bruce A. Blonigen & Christopher T. Taylor, 2000. "R&D Intensity and Acquisitions in High‐Technology Industries: Evidence from the US Electronic and Electrical Equipment Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 47-70, March.
    16. Adam Seth Litwin & Phillip H. Phan, 2013. "Quality over Quantity: Reexamining the Link between Entrepreneurship and Job Creation," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 66(4), pages 833-873, July.
    17. Michael Lubatkin & Zeki Simsek & Yan Ling & John F. Veiga, 2006. "Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms : The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration," Post-Print hal-02311781, HAL.
    18. Jay J. Ebben & Alec C. Johnson, 2005. "Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(13), pages 1249-1259, December.
    19. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2001. "Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 197-220, March.
    20. Jay B. Barney, 1988. "Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: Reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(S1), pages 71-78, June.
    21. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    22. Qing Cao & Eric Gedajlovic & Hongping Zhang, 2009. "Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 781-796, August.
    23. Frank T. Rothaermel, 2001. "Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 687-699, June.
    24. Juha Uotila & Markku Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2009. "Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 221-231, February.
    25. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    26. Foss, Kirsten & Foss, Nicolai J, 2002. "Organizing Economic Experiments: Property Rights and Firm Organization," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 15(4), pages 297-312, December.
    27. Balaji S. Chakravarthy, 1986. "Measuring strategic performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(5), pages 437-458, September.
    28. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    29. Jingoo Kang & Ribuga Kang & Sang‐Joon Kim, 2017. "An empirical examination of vacillation theory," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1356-1370, June.
    30. repec:mpr:mprres:5568 is not listed on IDEAS
    31. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    32. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    33. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    34. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    35. Auh, Seigyoung & Menguc, Bulent, 2005. "Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(12), pages 1652-1661, December.
    36. Michael Frese & Denise M. Rousseau & Johan Wiklund, 2014. "The Emergence of Evidence–Based Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(2), pages 209-216, March.
    37. Dovev Lavie & Jingoo Kang & Lori Rosenkopf, 2011. "Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1517-1538, December.
    38. Gunnar Eliasson & Åsa Eliasson, 2005. "The theory of the firm and the markets for strategic acquisitions," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Elias Dinopoulos & Robert F. Lanzillotti (ed.), Entrepreneurships, the New Economy and Public Policy, pages 91-115, Springer.
    39. Srinivasan, Raji & Lilien, Gary L. & Rangaswamy, Arvind, 2008. "Survival of high tech firms: The effects of diversity of product–market portfolios, patents, and trademarks," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 119-128.
    40. repec:mpr:mprres:5716 is not listed on IDEAS
    41. Ha Hoang & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2010. "Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 734-758, July.
    42. Frank T. Rothaermel & Maria Tereza Alexandre, 2009. "Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role of Absorptive Capacity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 759-780, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    2. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2023. "Effects of ambidextrous and specialized R&D strategies on firm performance: The contingent role of industry orientation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    4. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    5. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    6. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    7. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    8. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    9. Wenke, Kathrin & Zapkau, Florian B. & Schwens, Christian, 2021. "Too small to do it all? A meta-analysis on the relative relationships of exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity with SME performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 653-665.
    10. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Marina Estrada-Cruz & Noelia Rodriguez-Hernández & Antonio J. Verdú-Jover & Jose Maria Gómez-Gras, 2022. "The effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between strategic entrepreneurship and organizational results," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-24, March.
    12. Shuwaikh, Fatima & Brintte, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2022. "The impact of dynamic ambidexterity on the performance of organizations: Evidence from corporate venture capital investing in North America," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 991-1009.
    13. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    14. Guktae Kim & Moon-Goo Huh, 2015. "Exploration and organizational longevity: The moderating role of strategy and environment," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 389-414, June.
    15. Marina Estrada-Cruz & Noelia Rodriguez-Hernández & Antonio J. Verdú-Jover & Jose Maria Gómez-Gras, 0. "The effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between strategic entrepreneurship and organizational results," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    16. Young Rok Choi & Seongwook Ha & Youngbae Kim, 2022. "Innovation ambidexterity, resource configuration and firm growth: is smallness a liability or an asset?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2183-2209, April.
    17. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    18. Vinit Parida & Tom Lahti & Joakim Wincent, 2016. "Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: a study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1147-1164, December.
    19. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    20. Yasser Alizadeh & Antonie J. Jetter, 2019. "Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1-33, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:sbusec:v:58:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11187-021-00452-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.