The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy
Abstract
This paper examines why firms differ in levels of R&D investment intensity by developing and testing a theory of direct and interaction effects of top management team and board outsider composition on R&D intensity. The theory is tested in a longitudinal sample of technology‐intensive firms that completed an initial public offering. The results indicate that both top management team composition and board composition have direct and additive effects on R&D investment intensity. Also, monitoring by outsider directors does not constitute a universally effective governance mechanism with regard to a firm's R&D investment strategy. Firms opt for lower levels of R&D investment intensity when their outsider‐rich board interacts with a team of managers who have high levels of (1) firm tenure, (2) shared team‐specific experience, or (3) functional heterogeneity. When a firm's competitiveness relies on sustained R&D investments, it is important to note these interaction effects and make adjustments to promote a healthy dialogue between managers and the board. Adjustments could be made to the management team composition (e.g., initiating management turnover to reduce firm tenure) or to the bundle of governance mechanisms (e.g., partially substituting board monitoring with other mechanisms). Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Hsiao, C. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139839327 · Cited by 7,869
Group Cohesion and Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496491222002 · Cited by 535
How dynamics, management, and governance of resource deployments influence firm‐level performance
Kor, Y. Y., & Mahoney, J. T. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.459 · Cited by 497
Self-citation
Cited by
Green Governance: Boards of Directors’ Composition and Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility
Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/0007650310394642 · Cited by 1,241
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J. (2011) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0022147 · Cited by 1,205
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0401 · Cited by 774
Kent Baker, H., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025 · Cited by 620
Experience-Based Human Capital and Social Capital of Outside Directors
Kor, Y. Y., & Sundaramurthy, C. (2009) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206308321551 · Cited by 571
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kor, Y. Y.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-07-31
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1081-1099
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2003428021
- Cited by
- 609
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 33.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.