Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How firm boundaries and relatedness jointly affect diversification value: trade-offs between governance and flexibility

  • Manuscript
  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diversification involves ongoing decisions about firm boundaries and relatedness. We develop a theoretical model that uses a real-option framework combined with optimal mechanism design to analyze how choices of boundaries and relatedness affect firm performance in the face of tradeoffs between governance and flexibility. We find that: (1) optimal boundaries and relatedness are substitutes in determining firm performance; (2) the association between relatedness, the most commonly studied aspect of diversification, and firm performance is indeterminate; (3) the substitution between relatedness and boundaries declines as noise in internal communication increases; (4) variation in relatedness has greater impact than boundary size when headquarters can pick multiple winners; and (5) as the internal market for information becomes more efficient, the lower the value of relatedness in combination with small boundaries. The general conceptual implication of these points is that corporate governance interacts with firm relatedness and boundaries in generating diversification performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

source about projects, i.e., more efficient internal information market (c). a Firm value as a function of relatedness and boundaries under noisy signals (P3). b Firm value as a function of relatedness and boundaries under multiple winner picking (Proposition 4). c Firm value as a function of relatedness and boundaries under a change in the allocation mechanism (P5)

Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Firm boundary (N) indicates the number of investment opportunities (projects) that HQ considers. HQ chooses N out of the population of product lines, brands, distribution channels, locations, customer segments, value chain as well as industries. Therefore, N can become very large (e.g. P&G, Google, business groups).

  2. HQ commits to its solution, which remains optimal in three situations. First, our model can represent a repeated game between HQ and its divisions. Using the Folk theorem (Fudenberg and Maskin 1986), we can achieve any feasible and individually rational payoff if both HQ and PMs are sufficiently patient. In this case, deviating from the commitment is not optimal. Second, if HQ and PMs have identical time preferences, non-cooperative bargaining produces a Bayesian equilibrium in which a mechanism exists and produces the same allocation (Fudenberg and Tirole 1991). Third, if HQ commits to outside investors about processes that specify capital allocation, HQ can change the allocation rule only with the approval of its board; such a change is undesirable to all participants of the game. The notion of mechanism design and HQ’s commitment to it corresponds to the idea of constitution writing (Bower 1970), in which a key role of the top management team is to define and manage the organization’s structural rules.

  3. Risk aversion of HQ (more generally, HQ’s utility function) does not affect optimal resource-allocation qualitatively because we can transform a risk-aversion valuation problem into a risk-neutral valuation (Sakhartov and Folta 2014).

  4. We treat all projects equally, without giving special allocation to any project ex-ante. In addition, the model excludes information that does not influence the incentives of PMs and HQ. For example, if we introduced external shocks to projects and designed resource allocation conditional on the shocks, an asymmetrical equilibrium would arise; this is an equilibrium because exogenous shocks do not destroy incentive compatibility. Introducing prior information instead of external shocks leads to the same results. We abstract away such situations because they are straightforward. Furthermore, if shocks or prior information are assigned to projects with equal chance a priori (a maximum-entropy approach), we return to a symmetric equilibrium.

  5. Our truth-telling approach conforms to the VCG mechanism in two ways. First, both investigate how to allocate a given amount of internal resources to N agents. Second, the solutions are similar; as in the VCG family, our approach assigns a mechanism designer to pay a player the function of values of the other players.

  6. We define relatedness as input commonality. In turn, since any production function that matches inputs and outputs is one-to-one, input commonality generates output commonality.

  7. William McKnight, the chair of 3 M’s board. https://hbr.org/2013/08/the-innovation-mindset-in-acti-3.

References

  • Adner R, Zemsky P (2015) Diversification and performance: linking relatedness market structure and the decision to diversify. Strategy Sci 1(1):32–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner R, Ruiz-Aliseda F, Zemsky P (2016) Specialist versus generalist positioning: demand heterogeneity, technology scalability and endogenous market segmentation. Strategy Sci 1(3):184–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahrweiler P, Gilbert N, Pyka A (2011) Agency and structure: a social simulation of knowledge-intensive industries. Comput Math Organ Theory 17(1):59–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Antle R, Eppen GD (1985) Capital rationing and organizational slack in capital budgeting. Manage Sci 31(2):163–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (1986) Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Manage Sci 32(10):1231–1241

    Google Scholar 

  • Bausch AW (2014) Evolving intergroup cooperation. Comput Math Organ Theory 20(4):369–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker GS, Murphy KM (1992) The division of labor: coordination costs and knowledge. Quart J Econ 107(4):1137–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger PG, Ofek E (1995) Diversification's effect on firm value. J Financ Econ 37(1):39–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Blit J, Liu C, Mitchell W (2016) A theory of activity reconfiguration. In: Folta T, Helfat C, Karim S (eds) Advances in Strategic Management 35, Resource redeployment and corporate strategy. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 85–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower JL (1970) Managing the resource allocation process: a study of corporate planning and investment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch TR, Nanda V (2003) Divisional diversity and the conglomerate discount: evidence from spinoffs. J Finance Econ 70(1):69–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RM, Obel B, Håkonsson D (2015) Organizational design: a step-by-step approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Campa JM, Kedia S (2002) Explaining the diversification discount. J Finance 57(4):1731–1762

    Google Scholar 

  • Capron L, Mitchell W, Swaminathan A (2001) Asset divestiture following horizontal acquisitions: a dynamic view. Strateg Manag J 22(9):817–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanda SS, Ray S (2015) Optimal exploration and exploitation: the managerial intentionality perspective. Comput Math Organ Theory 21(3):247–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke EH (1971) Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11(1):17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SI, Loeb M (1984) The groves scheme, profit sharing, and moral hazard. Manage Sci 30(1):20–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Colak G, Whited TM (2007) Spin-offs, divestitures and conglomerate investment. Rev Financ Stud 20(3):557–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer J, McLean RP (1985) Optimal selling strategies under uncertainty for a discriminating monopolist when demands are interdependent. Econometrica 53(2):345–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer J, McLean RP (1988) Full extraction of the surplus in Bayesian and dominant strategy auctions. Econometrica 56(6):1247–1257

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer J, Garicano L, Prat A (2007) Language and the theory of the firm. Quart J Econ 122:373–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Custodio C (2014) Mergers and acquisitions accounting and the diversification discount. J Finance 69(1):219–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessein W, Garicano L, Gertner R (2010) Organizing for synergies. Am Econ J 2(4):77–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Manage Sci 35(12):1504–1511

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov V, Tice S (2006) Corporate diversification and credit constraints: real effects across the business cycle. Rev Financ Stud 19(4):1465–1498

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenmann TR, Bower JL (2000) The entrepreneurial M-form: strategic integration in global media firms. Organ Sci 11:348–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Folta TB, Miller KD (2002) Real options in equity partnerships. Strateg Manage J 23(1):77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg D, Maskin E (1986) The Folk theorem in repeated games with discounting or with incomplete information. Econometrica 54(3):533–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1991) Game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertner R, Powers E, Scharfstein D (2002) Learning about internal capital markets from corporate spin-offs. J Finance 57(6):2479–2506

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerwin D (1993) Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective. Manage Sci 39(4):395–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham JR, Lemmon ML, Wolf JG (2002) Does corporate diversification destroy value? J Finance 57(2):695–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves T (1973) Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41(4):617–631

    Google Scholar 

  • Hann RN, Ogneva M, Ozbas O (2013) Corporate diversification and the cost of capital. J Finance 68(5):1961–1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris M, Raviv A (1996) The capital budgeting process: Incentives and information. Journal of Finance 51(4):1139–1174

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris M, Raviv A (1998) Capital budgeting and delegation. J Financ Econ 50(3):259–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris M, Raviv A (2002) Organization design. Manage Sci 48(7):852–865

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris M, Kriebel CH, Raviv A (1982) Asymmetric information: incentives and intrafirm resource allocation. Manage Sci 28(6):604–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart O, Holmstrom B (2010) A theory of firm scope. Quart J Econ 125(2):483–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat CE, Eisenhardt KM (2004) Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity and the dynamics of diversification. Strateg Manage J 25(13):1217–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill CW, Hoskisson RE (1987) Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm. Acad Manage Rev 12(2):331–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoechle D, Schmid M, Walter I, Yermack D (2012) How much of the diversification discount can be explained by poor corporate governance? J Finance Econ 103(1):41–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom BR, Tirole J (1989) The theory of the firm. Handb Ind Organ 1:61–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovakimian G (2011) Financial constraints and investment efficiency: internal capital allocation across the business cycle. J Financ Intermed 20(2):264–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Hund J, Monk D, Tice S (2010) Uncertainty about average profitability and the diversification discount. J Finance Econ 96(3):463–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen KW, Håkonsson DD, Burton RM, Obel B (2010) The effect of virtuality on the functioning of centralized versus decentralized structures? An information processing perspective. Comput Math Organ Theory 16(2):144–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph J, Wilson A (2018) The growth of the firm: an attention-based view. Strateg Manage J 39:1779–1800

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang HG, Woo W, Burton RM, Mitchell W (2018) Constructing M&A valuation: how do merger evaluation methods differ as uncertainty and controversy vary? J Organ Des 7(1):2

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang HG, Holyoke TT (2013) No exaggeration: truthfulness in the lobbying of government agencies by competing interest groups. Jpn J Political Sci 14(4):499–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B, Kulatilaka N (1994) Operating flexibility, global manufacturing and the option value of a multinational network. Manage Sci 40(1):123–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuppuswamy V, Villalonga B (2016) Does diversification create value in the presence of external financing constraints? evidence from the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Manage Sci 62(4):905–923. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang LHP, Stulz RM (1994) Tobin’s q: corporate diversification and firm performance. J Political Econ 102(6):1248–1280

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SH, Peng MW, Barney JB (2007) Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship development: a real options perspective. Acad Manage Rev 32(1):257–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewellen WG (1971) A pure financial rationale for the conglomerate merger. J Finance 26(2):521–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeskind JP (2000) Internal capital markets in diversified firms: benefits, costs, and organizational arrangements. Organ Sci 11:58–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Yang H, Demirkan I (2007) The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Manage Sci 53(10):1645–1658

    Google Scholar 

  • Maksimovic V, Phillips G (2002) Do conglomerate firms allocate resources inefficiently across industries? Theory and evidence. J Finance 57(2):721–767

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JD, Sayrak A (2003) Corporate diversification and shareholder value: a survey of recent literature. J Corp Finance 9(1):37–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka JG, Nanda V (2002) Internal capital markets and corporate refocusing. J Financ Intermed 11(2):176–211

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee RP, Reny PJ (1992) Correlated information and mechanism design. Econometrica 60(2):395–421

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee RP, McMillan J, Reny PJ (1989) Extracting the surplus in the common-value auction. Econometrica 57(6):1451–1459

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollona E, Marcozzi A (2009) FirmNet: the scope of firms and the allocation of task in a knowledge-based economy. Comput Math Organ Theory 15(2):109

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson RB (1981) Optimal auction design. Math Oper Res 6(1):58–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Natividad G, Rawley E (2015) Interdependence and performance: a natural experiment in firm scope. Strategy Sci 1(1):12–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Neffke F, Henning M (2013) Skill relatedness and firm diversification. Strateg Manage J 34(3):297–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts K (1979) The characterization of implementable choice rules. Aggreg Revelation Prefer 12(2):321–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotemberg JJ, Saloner G (1994) Benefits of narrow business strategies. Am Econ Rev 84(5):1330–1349

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt RP (1974) Strategy, structure and economic performance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakhartov AV, Folta TB (2014) Resource relatedness, redeployability, and firm value. Strateg Manage J 35(12):1781–1797

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakhartov AV, Folta TB (2015) Getting beyond relatedness as a driver of corporate value. Strateg Manage J 36(13):1939–1959

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strateg Manage J 17(S2):63–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R (1995) Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strateg Manag J 16(S1):135–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Santalo J, Becerra M (2008) Competition from specialized firms and the diversification—performance linkage. J Finance 63(2):851–883

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharfstein DS, Stein JC (2000) The dark side of internal capital markets: divisional rent-seeking and inefficient investment. J Finance 55(6):2537–2564

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengul M, Gimeno J (2013) Constrained delegation: limiting subsidiaries’ decision rights and resources in firms that compete across multiple industries. Adm Sci Q 58:420–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengul M, Almeida Costa A, Gimeno J (2019) The allocation of capital within firms. Acad Manage Ann 13(1):43–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein JC (1997) Internal capital markets and the competition for corporate resources. J Finance 52(1):111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Tate G, Yang L (2015) The bright side of corporate diversification: evidence from internal labor markets. Rev Financ Stud 28(8):2203

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantis AJ, Hodder JE (1990) Valuing flexibility as a complex option. J Finance 45(2):549–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassolo RS, Anand J, Folta TB (2004) Non-additivity in portfolios of exploration activities: A real options-based analysis of equity alliances in biotechnology. Strateg Manage J 25(11):1045–1061

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. J Finance 16(1):8–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga B (2004a) Diversification discount or premium? New evidence from the business information tracking series. Journal of Finance 59(2):479–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Villalonga B (2004b) Does diversification cause the diversification discount? Finance Manage 33(2):5–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter GA, Barney JB (1990) Research notes and communications management objectives in mergers and acquisitions. Strateg Manage J 11(1):79–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan A, Yang Z, Jiao J (2010) Conglomerate investment under various capital market conditions. J Bank Finance 34(1):103–111

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hanyang University Business School, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 133-791, Korea

    Hyoung-Goo Kang

  2. Professor Emeritus of Strategy & Organization, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 100 Fuqua Drive, Box 90120, Durham, NC, USA

    Richard M. Burton

  3. Professor of Strategic Management, Anthony S. Fell Chair in New Technologies and Commercialization, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3E6, Canada

    Will Mitchell

Authors
  1. Hyoung-Goo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard M. Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Will Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard M. Burton.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 55 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, HG., Burton, R.M. & Mitchell, W. How firm boundaries and relatedness jointly affect diversification value: trade-offs between governance and flexibility. Comput Math Organ Theory 27, 1–34 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-020-09316-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-020-09316-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation