Acquiring new knowledge - The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms

By Annette L. Ranft, Michael D. Lord. 2000

381 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3e8cd0722275c9ec873e2d5875e8cf02e40f750b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Effects of Firm R&D Investment and Environment on Acquisition Likelihood* (2006, positive): “Several researchers (e.g. Bower, 2001; Ranft and Lord, 2000, 2002) have suggested that hightechnology acquisitions represent a distinct response to the innovation imperative that pervades many industries.”
The Impact of Knowledge Resources on New Venture Performance (2009, background): “In studying technology firms, Ranft and Lord (2000) describe employee skills, managerial systems, and processes as socially complex knowledge-based capabilities that exist at the core of the firms.”
Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees (2007, background): “…during an acquisition integration is vital because employees can choose to: leave the firm or remain, hold onto critical operational knowledge or share it, and raise their productivity level or become distracted by disruptions (Buono & Bowditch, 1989; Marks & Mirvis, 1992; Ranft & Lord, 2000).”
Does urban form matter for innovation productivity? A national multi-level study of the association between neighbourhood innovation capacity and urban sprawl (2019, background): “High-tech firms and businesses follow the knowledge workers; thus they tend to relocate to denser, more compact and more accessible urban areas (Ranft and Lord, 2000).”
Knowledge transfer and cross-border acquisition performance: The impact of cultural distance and employee retention (2016, methodology): “Other studies (Ernst & Vitt, 2000; Ranft, 2006; Ranft & Lord, 2000; 2002) also provide corroborative evidence that high turnover can adversely affect M&A performance.”
Performance Implications of Firm Resource Interactions in the Acquisition of R&D-Intensive Firms (2008, background): “So target firm R&D investments represent a primary motivation for acquisition activity (Ahuja and Katila 2001; Bresman et al. 1999; Ranft and Lord 2000, 2002; Heeley et al. 2006).”
How Anticipated Employee Mobility Affects Acquisition Likelihood: Evidence from a Natural Experiment (2015, background): “…research has examined how ex ante information problems associatedwith human capital can affect firms’ acquisition strategies (e.g., Coff, 1999) and how acquirers can work to reduce ex post employee departure from the acquired company (e.g., Larsson and Finkelstein, 1999; Ranft and Lord, 2000).”
Flexibility-Oriented HRM Systems, Absorptive Capacity, and Market Responsiveness and Firm Innovativeness (2013, background): “…shows that the better use of core employees who possess tacit and socially complex knowledge (e.g., by giving them more autonomy and acting on their suggestions) is essential to knowledge retention and transfer (and, by implication, exploitation) in the high-technology sector (Ranft & Lord, 2000).”
Venture Capitalists as Catalysts to New Venture Internationalization: The Impact of Their Knowledge and Reputation Resources (2009, positive): “New ventures were included in the sample only if their primary industry was classified as hightechnology by Securities Data Corp (SDC) Global New Issues database (Ranft & Lord, 2000) and within the communications high-technology classification.”
International Exposure Through Network Relationships: Implications for New Venture Internationalization (2013, background): “New ventures were included in the sample only if their primary industry was classified as hightechnology by the Securities Data Corp (SDC) Global New Issues database ( Ranft and Lord, 2000).”
Do High Technology Acquirers Become More Innovative (2010, background): “, 2006; Ranft and Lord, 2002); to a low retention rate of the acquired firms’ key employees, or to a lack of effective motives for the acquired firm’s inventors (Calderini et al., 2003; Chaudhuri and Tabrizi, 1999; Ernst and Vitt, 2000; Ranft and Lord, 2000).”