Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine whether alliance portfolio R&D intensity contributes to biopharmaceutical firms' number of new product approvals and whether alliance portfolio R&D intensity is more positively related to the number of new product approvals for pharmaceutical firms than for biotechnology firms.Design/methodology/approach: The paper employs a random effects Poisson regression model using panel data of 821 firm year observations for 146 biopharmaceutical firms operating in the USA. The robustness of results is also checked with additional analysis, provided in an appendix.Findings: The results of this study show that the R&D intensity of firms' alliance portfolios is positively related to their new product introductions. It is also found that alliance portfolio R&D intensity has a more positive impact on the pharmaceutical segment of the industry's new product introductions than those of the biotechnology segment.Originality/value: The authors develop and test theory about how the combined effects of two dimensions of alliance portfolio configuration (size and relationship strength) positively impact new product development. The authors propose a two dimensional alliance portfolio configuration measure, alliance portfolio R&D intensity. They combine the number of R&D alliances relative to the total number of alliances in the portfolio with the differential strength of ties associated with resource commitments required to source information from upstream and downstream alliances.

This research extends the problem-solving perspective of the knowledge-based view by examining the interdisciplinary publication outcomes of individual scientists in hybrid organizations. Whereas prior literature has focused on problem-solving activities in hierarchies (firms), hybrid organizations, including federally funded research programs involving interdisciplinary science, have emerged to address societal issues ranging from public health to climate change. To understand what might contribute to scientists’ performance in such hybrid settings, in this article, we theorize and empirically examine how scientists’ overall scientific reputation and their access to and familiarity with various disciplinary knowledge domains influence their publication output in interdisciplinary journals. We focus specifically on 169 researchers in the eight Nanomedicine Development Centers funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Our analysis reveals that scientists’ scientific reputation is positively related to their subsequent number of publications in interdisciplinary journals. However, scientists’ disciplinary knowledge diversity has a more nuanced association with their number of interdisciplinary publications, contributing more when moderate than when high or low. These findings will help hybrid organizations such as universities and research institutes understand how individual attributes contribute to interdisciplinary research.

During the current episode of globalization, capital has flown primarily to high income countries. Attempts to explain this “Lucas Paradox” have focused on the quality of institutions. We analyze data from a major institutional investor, the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, to estimate the separate effects of income per capita and institutional quality on international capital flows. After controlling for institutional quality, GDP per capita remains the primary determinant of investment.

The interface between organizations and their environments greatly interests organizational scholars. A key research stream—how changes in the external environment produce changes within organizations—is especially relevant in today’s turbulent economic and political context. We develop a theoretical model that considers external events and organizational routine changes as key components of disruption. We first draw on event system theory to derive and describe the external event dimensions of magnitude, coupling, clustering, and space, presented in a circumplex model. Then, we use an information-processing lens to theorize how those dimensions directly and contingently influence organizational routine change. We discuss our model’s implications for the effective management of organizations amid constant disruption.

In this study, we adopt the lens of routines, a core construct in the theory of organizations through which to view how enterprises respond to societal disruptions. Organizational routines refer to the established, repetitive patterns of activity performed by groups and individuals within an organization. Examples include standard operating procedures, patterns of communication and coordination, and distinctive decision protocols. Informed by the lens of routines, we investigate a significant adaptation triggered by the global COVID-19 pandemic, arguably one of the most consequential disruptions in the recent past: hybrid work. We propose that hybrid work—where employees alternate between remote and in-person work arrangements—represents a fundamental transformation in organizational work routines. Simultaneously, however, there is significant variation in its retention—some firms institutionalized hybrid work as a durable routine, while others reverted to pre-pandemic, on-site models. To investigate this variation, we adopted an empirically grounded quantitative discovery approach—specifically, an abductive design using archival data—to examine how organizational work routines change and persist in response to external events. We suggest that the persistence of new routines that emerge in response to societal disruptions is shaped by internal organizational characteristics, especially the information processing capacities that shape how firms interpret and respond to external events.