Multiple recipes for success – A configurational examination of business portfolio restructurings
Introduction
Actively managing the business portfolio to align firms’ businesses with their environment is a key element of corporate strategy (Pathak et al., 2014, Wu and Delios, 2009). In this context, large-scale transformations of the business portfolio mark the most decisive form of strategic change and constitute turning points in the life of a company (Nippa, Pidun, & Rubner, 2011). These transformations of the business portfolio, so called business portfolio restructurings (BPR), are defined as the implementation of a new portfolio strategy that transforms the composition of the portfolio of business units held by a multi-business firm. These portfolio restructurings are the major form of corporate restructuring (Schönhaar, Nippa, & Pidun, 2014) (together with financial and organizational restructuring) and can involve change in the form of e.g., acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs, or liquidations (C. Park & Kim, 2008). Previous literature about corporate restructuring could for instance show that firm characteristics such as business relatedness (Bergh, Johnson, & Dewitt, 2008), corporate governance characteristics such as the ownership and board structure (Dittmann et al., 2008, Jung et al., 2015, Kavadis and Castañer, 2015, Perry and Shivdasani, 2005), and industry characteristics such as shocks (Powell & Yawson, 2005) are relevant antecedents of corporate restructuring. In total, corporate restructuring makes about nine percent of strategy literature (Furrer, Thomas, & Goussevskaia, 2008). However, in the extant literature there is no consensus on the main determinants of the success or failure of such business portfolio restructurings (understood as the performance effect of the restructuring).
This observation is supported by studies reviewing the specific BPR phenomena divestitures (Brauer, 2006, Lee and Madhavan, 2010) and corporate refocusing (Hoskisson et al., 2005, Johnson, 1996, Rondi and Vannoni, 2005), which depict the difficulties to gain a comprehensive overview of the main success determinants. For example, some researchers find refocusing strategies to generally enhance firm performance (Hoskisson and Johnson, 1992, Markides, 1995), while others provide evidence of negative post-restructuring performance of refocusing firms (Montgomery & Thomas, 1988) or find no evidence for a general diversification discount or refocusing premium (Colak, 2010). Other researches emphasize the need for contingency models that account for the strategic fit of firms’ environment and the direction, magnitude, and timing of strategic change (Zajac, Kraatz, & Bresser, 2000).
These mixed findings in prior research may stem from the complex interplay of internal and external factors that influence strategic divestitures (Brauer, 2006), strategic change (Oehmichen, Schrapp, & Wolff, 2017), and portfolio transformation processes in general (Liao, 2005), as well as their respective success or failure. In different industry environments reasons for transformations might differ and hence different configurations of restructuring determinants can affect transformation success (Bergh, 1998). It thus seems that “the area of corporate restructuring is complex as it occurs across all industries over considerable periods of time and has multiple implications. Research questions using simple univariate models may not detect these complex relationships” (Johnson, 1996, p. 478).
Scholars examining the related fields of strategic change (Klarner and Raisch, 2013, Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1997), strategic fit (Zajac et al., 2000), or organizational turnaround (Trahms, Ndofor, & Sirmon, 2013) have developed a profound understanding of how the interplay of environmental factors such as the environmental dynamism (see e.g., Heyden et al., 2013, Van Doorn et al., 2017) (e.g., industry change), firm characteristics (e.g., profitability), and strategic actions (e.g., divestitures) determine the success of change processes. However, equivalent insights regarding more complex restructurings of entire business portfolios remain scarce. We aim to take the first step toward filling this gap by employing a theory-building research approach to better understand the configurations of determinants of portfolio transformation success. Specifically, we seek to answer the following question: Which sets of transformation design characteristics, contingent on individual firm characteristics and industry environment, will lead to successful BPR?
We develop a contingency model that describes how the combinations of firm characteristics, industry environment, and transformation design influence BPR success. To explore combinations of firm, industry, and transformation factors with high transformation success we use fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), which is intended not to isolate independent effects of single explanatory factors on a particular outcome, but rather to identify the multiple configurations of factors that lead to a particular outcome (Ragin, 2008).
Our study contributes to corporate restructuring research and the related literature in several ways. First, our findings demonstrate that there is no single universal bundle of transformation design characteristics that leads to successful portfolio transformations. We present multiple paths to BPR success, contingent on a firm characteristics and industry environment. Thereby, our study builds on first contingency models of strategic fit and extends them by allowing the multidimensional interplay of contingency factors on firm and industry level and transformation characteristics. While previous studies could already show with two-dimensional regression models that environmental factors matter for the performance effect of transformation characteristics such as direction, magnitude, and timing (e.g., Zajac et al., 2000), our study allows the design of specific configurations covering multiple contingency factors and transformation characteristics. Hence, we are able to make recommendations such as that firms with weak prior performance and low prior diversification with an environmental jolt should choose portfolio diversification that is fast and of moderate magnitude. Thus, our results also offer vital practical recommendations for managers that are planning and conducting a portfolio transformation. Second, our study aids to untangle mixed prior findings on the determinants of transformation success, and in this regard, we take the first step toward building a more holistic model of the complex interplay of internal and external factors in BPR. Third, our results highlight the causal asymmetry in BPR success in that we show how the factors leading to successful portfolio transformations differ from those leading to unsuccessful BPR.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we provide a brief recap of the concept of BPR and craft a contingency framework for BPR success, building on existing models from the strategic change, strategic fit, and organizational turnaround literature. We then review the corporate restructuring literature to identify and depict the most relevant determinants of transformation success regarding firm characteristics, industry environment, and transformation design characteristics. Finally, we introduce our analytical procedure and discuss results, conclusions, limitations, and recommendations for future research.
Section snippets
Theory
As mentioned earlier, we define BPR as large-scale and strategic modifications of the portfolio composition of strategic business units held by a multi-business firm. These kinds of corporate actions have been of great relevance for both scholars and practitioners since the middle of the past century (Nippa et al., 2011, Schönhaar et al., 2014). Current studies show that corporate portfolio management remains an important item on the strategic agenda of most large multi-business firms (Bergh
Method
The simultaneous consideration of transformation design, firm characteristics, and industry environment characteristics requires a research method that allows for the analysis of multiple interaction effects and complex configurations such as a set-theoretic approach based on fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). FsQCA allows for multiple pathways to the same outcome (“equifinality”) (Fiss, 2007). The view of causality is different from the view found in single-variable-oriented
Results
In our results tables (Table 2 and Table 3) black circles (“●”) indicate the presence of a condition, white circles (“○”) indicate its absence, and blank spaces mark conditions that may be present or absent. Furthermore, the core conditions are represented by larger symbols than those used for the contributing conditions. We report the consistency and coverage scores for our overall solutions as well as for each configuration. The presented solutions contain multiple configurations and the
Discussion and conclusion
Corporate restructuring research has built up a significant knowledge base of how various environmental factors (Bergh, 1998), firm characteristics (Markides, 1995), and transformation design characteristics (Schönhaar, Pidun, et al., 2014) influence the performance of specific BPR moves. Our fuzzy set theoretic analysis adds to this research and develops a multi-level contingency model (see Fig. 1) that analyzes determinants of BPR success. The methodological advantage of fsQCA to capture the
References (68)
- et al.
The influence of product market dynamics on a firm's cash holdings and hedging behavior
Journal of Financial Economics
(2007) - et al.
Tunneling through intercorporate loans: The China experience
Journal of Financial Economics
(2010) Antecedents and outcomes of corporate refocusing
Journal of Management
(1996)- et al.
Corporate restructuring: A symptom of poor governance or a solution to past managerial mistakes?
European Management Journal
(1997) - et al.
Corporate governance, regulatory changes, and corporate restructuring in Korea, 1993–2004
Journal of World Business
(2008) - et al.
A configurational analysis of the antecedents of entrepreneurial orientation
European Management Journal
(2017) - et al.
Industry aspects of takeovers and divestitures: Evidence from the UK
Journal of Banking and Finance
(2005) - et al.
Portfolio interrelationships and financial performance in the context of European firms
European Management Journal
(2003) - et al.
Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation in dynamic environments: The interplay between top management team advice-seeking and absorptive capacity
Long Range Planning
(2017) - et al.
The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change
Academy of Management Journal
(2004)
Why change programs don't produce change
Harvard Business Review
Product-market uncertainty, portfolio restructuring, and performance: An information-processing and resource-based view
Journal of Management
Restructuring through spin-off or sell-off: Transforming information asymmetries into financial gain
Strategic Management Journal
Portfolio restructuring and limits to hierarchical governance: The effects of environmental uncertainty and diversification strategy
Organization Science
Business model innovation in alliances: Successful configurations
Journal of Business Research
What have we acquired and what should we acquire in divestiture research? A review and research agenda
Journal of Management
Corporate and divisional manager involvement in divestitures - a contingent analysis
British Journal of Management
Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos - repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity
Strategic Management Journal
Diversification, refocusing and firm value
European Financial Management
Executive accountability around the world: Sources of cross-national variation in firm performance-CEO dismissal sensitivity
Strategic Organization
Investor protection and corporate governance: Evidence from worldwide CEO turnover
Journal of Accounting Research
How preussag became TUI: A clinical study of institutional blockholders and restructuring in Europe
Financial Management
A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations
Academy of Management Review
Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research
Academy of Management Journal
Shifting gears: Enabling change in corporate aggressiveness
Strategic Management Journal
The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research
International Journal of Management Reviews
When more is not better: Complementarities, costs and contingencies in stakeholder management
Strategic Management Journal
Mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructurings
Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research
Organizational Research Methods
Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change
Organization Studies
Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion
Academy of Management Journal
Perceived environmental dynamism, relative competitive performance, and top management team heterogeneity: Examining correlates of upper echelons' advice-seeking
Organization Studies
Entering the digital era – the impact of digital technology – related M & as on business model innovations of automobile OEMs
International Conference on Information Systems
Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations
Cited by (7)
Entrepreneurial orientation dimensions and the performance of high-tech and low-tech firms: A configurational approach
2023, European Management JournalGetting family firm diversification right: A configurational perspective on product and international diversification strategies
2022, Journal of Family Business StrategyCitation Excerpt :Under high vulnerability (i.e., low current performance and weak performance outlook), later-generation family firms with a professionalized management should opt for large product diversification. While family business owners may refrain from radical diversification decisions under prosperity, a “burning platform” requires radical business portfolio restructurings (Hildebrandt et al., 2018), even if this involves diversifying into completely unrelated domains (Jones et al., 2013; McGovern & McLean, 2013). As an example, consider a large, third-generation German publishing house from our sample.
Is the restructuring-performance relationship moderated by the economic cycle and the institutional environment for corporate governance?
2020, Journal of Business ResearchCitation Excerpt :As another future line of research, a more holistic model of BPR strategy should be developed. Following Hildebrandt et al. (2018), this model should help show that BPR is not a single event in the history of a corporation and that BPR could occur at early and advanced stages in the strategy and structure development of firms. Another future line of research, related to other limitations of this study could be the use of other measures of BPR identifying, for example, the businesses that are disinvested by corporations.
Predicting the Divestment of Prior Acquisitions
2022, British Journal of ManagementUnbundling Strategic Change in Family Firms: the Influence of Familiness on the Strategic Change Process
2021, Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research